2017 Tour de France thread

last 1 km of stage8 - super weird without commentary

https://youtu.be/MqqfE0guDWo

more highlights (restricted to usa)

http://www.nbcsports.com/video/sport/cycling

dog_toe wrote:Are the wheels torquing?

No. That's an optical effect of using a very high-speed camera to capture that last couple of meters at the finish line.

The finish line camera photos are pretty counter-intuitive.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

dog_toe wrote:Are the wheels torquing?

No. That's an optical effect of using a very high-speed camera to capture that last couple of meters at the finish line.

The finish line camera photos are pretty counter-intuitive.

More like the last few millimeters. It's the same as a photo finish camera in running. It's not just a picture of them frozen in time. It's a very small slit (no shutter) and the film (well digital now) feeds through it at a certain speed so that a certain distance is equal to a certain time. Then they can take out the ruler and measure time gaps.

So things that are moving faster get compressed (like the spokes at the top) and things moving slower get stretched out (like the spokes at the bottom).

stage9 is really riviting

feel horrible about the crashes but this day is incredible otherwise

and this tracker is fantastic while watching a stream, click on "live" and click on "track riders" and zoom in

http://live.thetourtracker.com/

happy for mountain climbs, Kittel is nearly an hour behind, good riddance to sprinters

was hoping to see what Nairo Quintana can do but no sign of him really

maybe next hour as everyone starts to get more tired

Geraint Thomas out. Crash and broken collarbone.

Ouch.

ugh collarbone breaks are the worst, my friend says it hurts every time it is going to rain

Porte looked in quite pain after the brutal spill.

folks in europe can watch this brief and "colorful" video summary of the first 9 days while they rest today - looks like we are back to a sprinters finish Tuesday for stage10 unless somehow a breakaway succeeds and defeats kittel (we can only hope)

(region locked to europe)

http://vodp.eurosport.com/ebu/2017/07/10/tdf17-1-no-music_10082248-990123-2300-1024-576.mp4

but why wrote:

happy for mountain climbs, Kittel is nearly an hour behind, good riddance to sprinters

was hoping to see what Nairo Quintana can do but no sign of him really

maybe next hour as everyone starts to get more tired

Quintana is coming off the giro. Hard to be a factor under those circumstances.

but why wrote:

how many watts does a super-elite like froome put out for those 30 minutes?

I remember there was some controversy he refused to release the data, or was that another rider

I still cannot get over how I average 18-20mph on my rides at best effort and these cyclists do 30+ for hours, even with a pack that still means the front is putting out that much power. They don't even rotate leads, at least not for the hour I watched.

https://i1.wp.com/sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/fastest-performances.png

You can generally bank on it being around 5.6-6.2 w/kg or so. Little more on the lower end of that for a big guy, and on the higher end for a small guy. Also depends on the point in the race and how hard the rest of the day has been.

If you take a mid size climber that is like 65kg, I'd say you're usually look at somewhere around 360w-420w to win from the GC group.

In terms of the pack speeds, if you're sitting in and it's fairly tranquillo you're looking at close to 50% savings on flat roads. So even if those guys at the front are laying down 400w, you're likely just cruising along at 300. In terms of the front guys not rotating off, yea they don't have to necessarily; a few things at play:

1) Usually the teams keeping guys at the front put the kind of guys that are big powerhouses at the front. Guys that have FTP 420-450 (on flats absolute power is much more important than power to weight) and just have them ride tempo. It's nothing for a 450w FTP guy to stay on the front for an hour at 350w-400w, which would carry you anywhere between 25-30mph.

2) Breakaway - Sometimes when there is a breakaway up the road the peleton doesn't want to pull it back too fast, as it keeps the race more tranquil. Guys don't want to attack if there is a group 5' up the road, it's too far to bridge, so the peleton will often ride a little slower than the break to let a gap open up, and of course the break isn't going full gas either, so there are times where even at the front they aren't really hammering away.

As for your own speeds, you have to consider a few things: How many traffic stops/intersections do you have? How hilly is the terrain? What bike/gear are you riding? What is your position like? Most likely, none of these things are especially favorable, which means you might need a whole lot more power to go quick. Generally, on flat roads, most guys need between 200w-250w to travel around 20mph. Very rough estimate, but that gives a good ballpark figure.

Hurl wrote:

Two or three reasons why:

NOBODY can just ride away from "climbers" like that.

Power data from Froome shows that when he was riding up to, and away from climbers to that win, the demand on his body was about equal to sitting on the couch and watching TV. Doesn't seem right, that.

You need to be subtle, son. That wasn't subtle.

Just "ride away" from climbers like that? Froome did about 600-625w for 20". Contador was on his wheel when Froome started attacking, but about 8-9s into the attack he starts fatiguing and doesn't have the super intensity to go with Froome's acceleration. What do you do in that situation? Stop attacking, drop to FTP, and ride the fastest up the hill you can, even pace. At about 8 seconds you can see Contador dial the effort back, while Froome continues the attack. At this point, Froome is still doing 600w or so, while Contador has probably dropped back to 300-350 to gather himself. If someone is pedaling twice as hard, you'd expect them to just ride away from you VERY quickly.

When you're attacking in cycling you do not want to be subtle. That just gets people to ride your wheel and chill while you bury yourself. Attacks need to be savage, with an initial kick at full sprint, and then sustaining a very aggressive "400m" type pace for another 10-30 seconds.

The power data itself is not suspicious either. They climb the first 25' or so looking to be averaging around 410-420w, which is around 6.1-6.2 w/kg for Froome. Reasonable, and many climbs are ridden this way, with sky setting a 6-6.5w/kg pace that is above almost everybodies threshold, such that nobody really wants to attack. Froome then attacks for 20 seconds, averaging somewhere in the lower 600s. That's not that crazy of an attack. I know I could ride 20' at my threshold, attack for 20" at 600w, and go back to riding threshold. Or in elite runner terms that's like cruising around at 4:20-4:25 pace on the track for 20' then throwing in a 20" 150m segment. After that attack Froome follows it up with 25' averaging below 300w. So in running terms, that's 20' at 4:25 pace, 150m in 20", and then 100m in 30s" or so. At that point, Froome get's back on the pace, but generally sustains less than what he was doing before, I'd say generally quite a bit more time under 400 than over 400, so about 5% less than he was doing before, meaning he closes the climb with another 15' at about 4:35 pace, outside of a brief surge to drop Quintana (approx 15s at little over 500w, so something like 100m in 15s in elite running terms).

All in all, that's a pretty believable effort. Unless you just don't buy Froome having a threshold around 6-6.2 w/kg, that ride is totally believable, and any decent cyclist could do a ride like that (scaled for their own threshold).

Hurl wrote:

Power data from Froome shows that when he was riding up to, and away from climbers to that win, the demand on his body was about equal to sitting on the couch and watching TV. Doesn't seem right, that.

LOL

What does this mean? Power data shows Froome was doing 400 or so watts. I don't know about you, but my couch demands approximately 0 watts to sit on it.

uppity wrote:

The power data itself is not suspicious either.

Well, that's doubtful considering there is no way to know how clean the athletes are. And we know the bio-passport system is not designed to detect doping over three weeks of daily competition.

Froome has no credibility. Where was this grand tour monster hiding before suddenly world-beating results at a Vuelta?

Cycling is as bad as the IAAF. Thoroughly corrupt and okay with doping.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

uppity wrote:

The power data itself is not suspicious either.

Well, that's doubtful considering there is no way to know how clean the athletes are. And we know the bio-passport system is not designed to detect doping over three weeks of daily competition.

Froome has no credibility. Where was this grand tour monster hiding before suddenly world-beating results at a Vuelta?

Cycling is as bad as the IAAF. Thoroughly corrupt and okay with doping.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Should not have said it that way.

What I was attempting to explain (in regards to the guy I replied to talking about Froome riding away), is the dynamics of why it looked like Froome just "rode away" from Contador, and how the power output shows that's just a normal attack with a guy sitting up halfway into it.

I think what I should have said is not that the power data isn't suspicious, but that taken by itself it's not inherently incriminating. If Froome would have attacked for 30s at 1200w, or ridden a section of the climb at 500w for 20' or whatever that would have been inherently incriminating.

The other aspect of the power is that it shows that Froome is definitely at his limit. He almost cracks himself after that first attack, and a bit later in the climb can barely get above 500w for 10" trying to drop Quintana. All the changes in power and mannerisms suggest a rider near the limit.

Of course, as you said, this definitely does NOT mean Froome is clean. It just means that he is almost certainly at his limit, and that limit is within the oft cited plausible upper limits of FTP, around 6.2 w/kg or so. Basically, Froome isn't outrageously doped, and given his data it's also possible, albeit improbable, that he is clean.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

uppity wrote:

The power data itself is not suspicious either.

Well, that's doubtful considering there is no way to know how clean the athletes are. And we know the bio-passport system is not designed to detect doping over three weeks of daily competition.

Froome has no credibility. Where was this grand tour monster hiding before suddenly world-beating results at a Vuelta?

Cycling is as bad as the IAAF. Thoroughly corrupt and okay with doping.

I'm less sure on this. There have been numerous comments from riders I'd be damn willing to bet are clean, i.e. Phil Gaimon, talking about how much the culture has changed in cycling. Absolutely people are still doping, in fact I suspect a great many of the consistent winners are doping; but it's a cleaner sport by far than it was.

More importantly, it's "controlled" enough that on the right occasions clean riders are actually capable of winning a stage from time to time. This matters to me because until we have some kind of futuristic super tech, I think the dopers will always come out ahead, and will always have a presence. The more we can do to reduce that, the better. 15 years ago guys that were doped to the gills probably had a 10-15% advantage. That's insurmountable. Today, it looks like that advantage might be more like 2-4%. If we can keep bringing that down, to say under one percent, not only would that give clean athletes a fighting shot, but it might also be a modest enough of a benefit to deter a larger number of athletes from even doping in the first place.

Big risks for a 10-15% benefit and good odds of becoming a top class rider with multi million salary? Lotta people gonna take those odds. Big risks for a 1% gain that might take you from a "barely on the team domestique" to just an average domestique? Perhaps not so many.

LM wrote:

I'm less sure on this. There have been numerous comments from riders I'd be damn willing to bet are clean, i.e. Phil Gaimon, talking about how much the culture has changed in cycling.

Phil Gaimon? Phil Gaimon doesn't know sh**. He wasn't even riding a bike when the whole "doping culture" was running rampant.

Plus he defends known and convicted doper friends up and down while launching tirades on others. He's a brazen hypocrite and a total dbag to boot.

real biker wrote:

LM wrote:

I'm less sure on this. There have been numerous comments from riders I'd be damn willing to bet are clean, i.e. Phil Gaimon, talking about how much the culture has changed in cycling.

Phil Gaimon? Phil Gaimon doesn't know sh**. He wasn't even riding a bike when the whole "doping culture" was running rampant.

Plus he defends known and convicted doper friends up and down while launching tirades on others. He's a brazen hypocrite and a total dbag to boot.

Who has he defended? Danielson? I don't think I've seen him defend anyone outside of that.

From what I know of that story it sounds like Danielson took Phil under his wing, trained with him a ton, and was a huge component of why Gaimon even got a shot to ride WT in the first place. I'm sure they were great friend and Gaimon looks up to him hugely. People generally trust their really good friends very heavily, even in situations where that doesn't seem warranted. Taken together, it's not hard for me to think Gaimon would eat up Tom's "story" about being wrongly convicted and then defend Tom because "I trust my friend and know he wouldn't do this".

If there are others he is defending, I'd have to revist my opinions, but for one really close friend that seems like typical, if emotionally blinded, human behavior.

With respect to doping culture, you don't need to have been riding a bike or in the peleton to know if their is a doping culture when you're there. If many of your teammates are doping, you're going to have an idea that's happening, and you're also likely to hear through the grapevine rumors about which other riders are doping on other teams.

Also, note the ":i.e.". It's not an exhaustive list. Phil is not the only rider to profess such sentiments.