How good is Chris Froome?

ddraver

Popping over to the 'Its all kicking off' thread may be a good idea,

This is very low standard trolling....

topper_harley

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Been posted. Utter garbage.

You dont like his balanced view?

Kimmage...Balanced

milemuncher1

cougie wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We are talking reasonably fine margins at the top level, it's not like going from being dropped on the club run to winning on Ventoux, if we are going to argue that a rider can't take a step up without being guilty we may as well pack up watching. I'm not a fan of Sky or of Froome but he's come from an unconventional cycling background, he must have had talent to break through.

But it’s the difference between doing something remarkable, and it being too good to be true. I really can’t remember ever seeing an athlete doing something ‘remarkable’ and the performance not being ‘artificially enhanced’. Think Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Spanish World Cup winning football team ( recently), and numerous other dubious performances. It’s the duck test. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Without going full bore tin hat, it would only take some strategic clandestine ‘hand shakes / pay offs’ and the performance is ‘legit’. Sooner or later, someone in the chain will squeal, it’s inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better.

You have to be a parody account surely ?

So this chain with Sky and Froome. How far back does it go. Have they just decided that multiple Olympic victories were great and all but now it's time to break out the dope for Froome?

How many riders have been through the mill with Brailsford ? There have been high profile fallings out but where is the information on doping ? Oh it doesn't exist.

And kilojoule data in Froome. You're a clown. Please go away and talk about stuff you know about. Like multiple Strava recordings and avoiding any mentions of hills.

I’ve only just realised I posted in “pro race” I feel dirty, really dirty. Now I’ll leave you to get back to your little circle jerk with your girlfriends. I NEED BLEACH.

milemuncher1

cougie wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We are talking reasonably fine margins at the top level, it's not like going from being dropped on the club run to winning on Ventoux, if we are going to argue that a rider can't take a step up without being guilty we may as well pack up watching. I'm not a fan of Sky or of Froome but he's come from an unconventional cycling background, he must have had talent to break through.

But it’s the difference between doing something remarkable, and it being too good to be true. I really can’t remember ever seeing an athlete doing something ‘remarkable’ and the performance not being ‘artificially enhanced’. Think Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Spanish World Cup winning football team ( recently), and numerous other dubious performances. It’s the duck test. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Without going full bore tin hat, it would only take some strategic clandestine ‘hand shakes / pay offs’ and the performance is ‘legit’. Sooner or later, someone in the chain will squeal, it’s inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better.

You have to be a parody account surely ?

So this chain with Sky and Froome. How far back does it go. Have they just decided that multiple Olympic victories were great and all but now it's time to break out the dope for Froome?

How many riders have been through the mill with Brailsford ? There have been high profile fallings out but where is the information on doping ? Oh it doesn't exist.

And kilojoule data in Froome. You're a clown. Please go away and talk about stuff you know about. Like multiple Strava recordings and avoiding any mentions of hills.

And I’m a “clown”?. Go and look in the mirror you sad sad individual.

topper_harley

I’d say it’s true, you’re a clown

imposter2.0

Milemuncher1 wrote:

And I’m a “clown”?. Go and look in the mirror you sad sad individual.

Ironic..

bobmcstuff

ddraver wrote:

Popping over to the 'Its all kicking off' thread may be a good idea,

This is very low standard trolling....

Kind of surprised it came up in that thread, as this thread was still mainly on topic.

The kicking off thread used to be quite good for a laugh, threads used to get linked when they were just descending nicely, but these days it seems like it's just BB trolls looking for threads they might be able to throw some petrol on. I prefer a more "authentic" experience from my bikeradar slagging matches...

milemuncher1

Shirley Basso wrote:

Isn't a watt a measure of power over time? A joule is just a measure of energy.

You're clearly chatting more nonsense about stuff you evidently don't understand.

The power output isnt that high (already discussed) and a motor is so unrealistic you have to be well down the lower end of the iq spectrum to even consider it a) to even work and b) to get away with it.

Basically the reason he crushed the opposition on that stage is frankly due to 2 factors 1) they weren't that good and 2) the only meaningful opponent faffed about waiting for another freeloader who couldnt keep up.

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

shirley_basso

Watt = joule per second. Mate.

Given a watt is the SI for power globally and for cyclists and combined with the other nonsense you often spout, I'd say in this case, like most others when you try to provide 'facts' that you're wrong.

A joule is not a measure of effort. It's a measure of energy stored perhaps.

The worst part is that you think you know everything when the opposite is so clearly true.

Jez mon

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Isn't a watt a measure of power over time? A joule is just a measure of energy.

You're clearly chatting more nonsense about stuff you evidently don't understand.

The power output isnt that high (already discussed) and a motor is so unrealistic you have to be well down the lower end of the iq spectrum to even consider it a) to even work and b) to get away with it.

Basically the reason he crushed the opposition on that stage is frankly due to 2 factors 1) they weren't that good and 2) the only meaningful opponent faffed about waiting for another freeloader who couldnt keep up.

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

Is it really?

Most people seem to talk about 1/5/10/20/20+ minutes power, and then W/kg, which will give you a rough idea of how quick you can fight gravity.

Some people on t'internet, reckon they also know what a trained athlete can put out in W/kg with and without doping.

We could multiply the power by the time, and get a figure for total energy, and work out how many Big Macs Chris Froome can eat now he's done the giro though. But I don't see many of the "scientists" on twitter banging on about some theoretical maximum energy burned, it's all about Watts.

imafatman

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

I mean you are sort of right but it's kind of hard to agree with you when you say "a watt is the product of cadence and torque".

A joule is exactly the same as watt-seconds because a joule is watts x seconds. Watts being a measurement of power and joules being a measurement of energy.

Joules would be your total energy expenditure for a particular time period and watts would be the amount of power you were putting out for a particular time period.

It's also quite common in the cycling world to use watts(Average) to describe ones capability to maintain a particular power output for a particular time period because it's simpler than converting back and forth between joules.

For the most part it seems pointless discussing joules unless you are talking about how much food to eat after a big ride.

gotwood25

This thread is class, keeping me royally entertained.

Off to convert my Trainer Road power zones to 'joules' now, got some Big Mac intervals tonight which I'm dreading.

r0bh

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

I did a ride yesterday, average power 166W for 4.3 hours = 2569 kJ

So, as I understand your reasoning, this would be exactly equivalent to me riding at twice the power for half the time? 332W for 2.15 hours = 2569 kJ

Sounds great, apart from the fact that the latter ride would be absolutely impossible for me; I can ride at 332W for about 5 minutes :roll:

bompington

You're all talking mince, power is properly measured as (length of a jumbo jet) x (the weight of Wales) / (the length of time it takes a taxi driver behind you to sound his horn when the lights go green)³

shirley_basso

bompington wrote:

You're all talking mince, power is properly measured as (length of a jumbo jet) x (the weight of Wales) / (the length of time it takes a taxi driver behind you to sound his horn when the lights go green)³

It's width of a jumbo
Weight of a double decker.
AREA of Wales.

Come on now.

larkim

I don't know why you didn't just ride at 664W for 1.075hours instead - would have taken much less time so you could have nipped down to McDonalds and replenished those joules...

PhilipPirrip

r0bh wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

I did a ride yesterday, average power 166W for 4.3 hours = 2569 kJ

So, as I understand your reasoning, this would be exactly equivalent to me riding at twice the power for half the time? 332W for 2.15 hours = 2569 kJ

Sounds great, apart from the fact that the latter ride would be absolutely impossible for me; I can ride at 332W for about 5 minutes :roll:

Don't forget you're meant to record each ride on at least two devices and just add it together.

Bingo! You can say you've produced twice the power.

RichN95.

Shirley Basso wrote:

bompington wrote:

You're all talking mince, power is properly measured as (length of a jumbo jet) x (the weight of Wales) / (the length of time it takes a taxi driver behind you to sound his horn when the lights go green)³

It's width of a jumbo
Weight of a double decker.
AREA of Wales.

Come one now.

I though a Jumbo Jet was a unit of noise
And Double Decker is a unit of height
Weight is measured in elephants.

hanshotfirst

Shirley Basso wrote:

Weight of a double decker.

Bus or chocolate bar?

larkim

Should we just fit Froome with a fitbit so it can tell us his calories burned at the end of his ride?

Actually, to a small extent I do wish we got some of that sort of info because there is some value (some) in understanding, say, how much energy it consumed from Froome, his teammates and the other GC contenders to get to the foot of the climb. It would show the benefit (assuming it was accurate) of the team "pulling" Froome and whether others benefitted more or less from the same drafting, which may have an impact in terms of the level of accumulated fatigue present at the point at which they needed to output more instantaneous bursts of power.

What it wouldn't tell us is whether that energy used was all present in Froome on the start line, or whether he (and others) acquired it on route via food / drinks, and therefore how much in his glycogen stores he had available to output from that point onwards. Of course, expressing this in average Watts used to the foot of the climb would be exactly the same as expressing it in joules or calories in terms of comparability.

imposter2.0

The funniest thing here is that some of you guys seem to be taking Milemuncher seriously. The guy is a clueless walt - and is probably also a masochist in his spare time. I'm sure he actually gets off on being flamed like this...

drhaggis

imafatman wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

I mean you are sort of right but it's kind of hard to agree with you when you say "a watt is the product of cadence and torque".

There are many things wrong on this thread, including me mixing up Yates' Terbutaline with Salbutamol. Milemuncher's sentence, however, is strictly correct.

Jez mon

Shirley Basso wrote:

bompington wrote:

You're all talking mince, power is properly measured as (length of a jumbo jet) x (the weight of Wales) / (the length of time it takes a taxi driver behind you to sound his horn when the lights go green)³

It's width of a jumbo
Weight of a double decker.
AREA of Wales.

Come on now.

And it fits all inside twenty Olympic size swimming pools

t5nel

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

In laymans terms and to extend the previous analogy used on this thread

Energy (Joules) would be total number of matches burned

Power (Watts or Joules/second) would be how many matches are being burned simultaneously

I fear for the future of the STEM subjects :roll:



Clearly the two are related

poptart242

PhilipPirrip wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

I did a ride yesterday, average power 166W for 4.3 hours = 2569 kJ

So, as I understand your reasoning, this would be exactly equivalent to me riding at twice the power for half the time? 332W for 2.15 hours = 2569 kJ

Sounds great, apart from the fact that the latter ride would be absolutely impossible for me; I can ride at 332W for about 5 minutes :roll:

Don't forget you're meant to record each ride on at least two devices and just add it together.

Bingo! You can say you've produced twice the power.

AND finally a high enough cadence to stay upright.

Vino'sGhost

Basic physics

kingstongraham

We need FishFish on here.

bompington

t5nel wrote:

I fear for the future of the STEM subjects :roll:

We're fine as long as we've got Froome as our STEM standard bearer

bompington

DrHaggis wrote:

imafatman wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Nice to see your complete ignorance laid bare. A Watt is the product of Cadence and Torque, and is independent of duration of application. A Jolue ( depending on the application ) is a better measure of effort, when talking about cycling.The product of power and time, in this case. It’s a WattSecond, much like a KWh, is used to price energy.

I mean you are sort of right but it's kind of hard to agree with you when you say "a watt is the product of cadence and torque".

There are many things wrong on this thread, including me mixing up Yates' Terbutaline with Salbutamol. Milemuncher's sentence, however, is strictly correct.

It's a fine example of how you can be 100% mathematically correct and yet still fundamentally wrong.

above_the_cows

gotwood25 wrote:

This thread is class, keeping me royally entertained.

Off to convert my Trainer Road power zones to 'joules' now, got some Big Mac intervals tonight which I'm dreading.

I've just eaten a donut. Not sure what wattage I'll have to produce this on this evening's spin though.