# Pro power numbers, seriously?



## new2rd

Being a newbie to using a power meter, I'm blown away by the numbers. I mean, I look at most professional cyclists especially they climbers and GC guys and stating that they are small is an understatement. How in the world can they produce that kind of power? My most recent finding was Braddley Wiggens at 488 watts for an hour long time trial.


----------



## Creakyknees

new2rd said:


> ...How in the world can they produce that kind of power?


Depending on your worldview, the answers are: 
1) talent + training
2) talent + training + dope


----------



## tazzmacd

The other advantage they have is that an elite cyclist can push themselves beyond the pain threshold where the average rider might not go.


----------



## spade2you

tazzmacd said:


> The other advantage they have is that an elite cyclist can push themselves beyond the pain threshold where the average rider might not go.


I have a pretty high pain threshold, but it's meaningless because that's the kind of pain when I've popped.

Definitely a combination of being able to train a lot. I'd like to think almost everyone here could generate much better numbers if we could train like that (and gradually build towards that).


----------



## Local Hero

new2rd said:


> Being a newbie to using a power meter, I'm blown away by the numbers. I mean, I look at most professional cyclists especially they climbers and GC guys and stating that they are small is an understatement. How in the world can they produce that kind of power? My most recent finding was Braddley Wiggens at 488 watts for an hour long time trial.


That's why he's one of the best in the world. It's similar to comparing yourself to professional power lifters -- I find it unbelievable that someone can squat over 1200lbs or bench press over 1000lbs.


----------



## AdamM

There's no question the top pros produce massive watts per kg when they need to, but just as important is that they're very efficient. You'll see often their power output is notably low for large amounts of time as compared to the average. Things like positioning on the bike, learning to follow the right wheels and when to go and when to sit in.


----------



## moskowe

I don't mean to challenge your numbers, but I would love to know where you got your data for Wiggo doing 488 watts over a whole hour. I would maybe believe it for a 20mn effort, which would put him at over 7 watts/kg, but there's no way he holds that for an hour. If he did, that would put his 20mn power out of this world. 

Oh and considering that no one has ever done the hour record at over 480w other than Merckx, that Merckx weighed 5 kilos more than Wiggo, and that the hour record requires somewhere around 6.5w/kg sustained for an hour, I'd say if he truly did sustained 488 watts for an hour it's time to hit the track and easily pulverize the hour record.


----------



## Wookiebiker

moskowe said:


> I don't mean to challenge your numbers, but I would love to know where you got your data for Wiggo doing 488 watts over a whole hour. I would maybe believe it for a 20mn effort, which would put him at over 7 watts/kg, but there's no way he holds that for an hour. If he did, that would put his 20mn power out of this world.
> 
> Oh and considering that no one has ever done the hour record at over 480w other than Merckx, that Merckx weighed 5 kilos more than Wiggo, and that the hour record requires somewhere around 6.5w/kg sustained for an hour, I'd say if he truly did sustained 488 watts for an hour it's time to hit the track and easily pulverize the hour record.


If I remember correctly those are the numbers he was quoted as producing in the final TT of last years TDF.

To the OP: Creakyknees is correct in his assessment. Loads of talent, loads of training and for most lots of "Extra Juice" but talk like that will get this moved to another forum 

Of course Indurain was estimated to put out over 500 watts for an hour


----------



## moskowe

Indurain weighed 80 kilos, that's a full 10 kilos more than Wiggins. His power output was never tested super accurately, but even if it was 550 (against the 530 some people put forward) that still gives a w/kg of 6.875. That's much lower than the 7+ w/kg Wiggo supposedly achieved.

I looked everywhere for info on the power output of Wiggo in the last TT, and the closest I got was one source saying 450. That would give him (supposing a 69-70kg weight) a 6.5+ w/kg, which is already pretty enormous.

Quite simply, at his weight during the Tour, it is pretty much impossible for him to have averaged 488 watts on a one hour effort. If he had, then you wouldn't need any proof that he doped, for the simple reason that no one's ever reached such a high wattage/kg.
So yeah...


----------



## Local Hero

I also question 480 watts for an hour. But that's neither here nor there. Pros are strong. 

Actually, someone freaked out on me in the youtube comments once over something similar. I said, "Nobody pushes 500 watts for an hour" -- they claimed Spartacus did it and told me there was a 40K TT in which he got close. But that 40K didn't take him an hour.


----------



## moskowe

Then again, Cancellara is also 80kg. He has to push a higher power than most, so 500 watts for a 40k TT ? It's believable.

Wiggo at 69kg cannot come close to 490 over an hour. It's just mathematically impossible. Unless he uses Cancellara's mechanical engine in his bike.


----------



## aclinjury

The pros are good, no doubt. But I think it's time we take a step back and take our amazement level down a notch considering the rampant doping.


----------



## moskowe

It's actually quite sad how many amateur cyclists who train with power are blatantly unaware of the implications of power threshold on pro cyclists' performance.

The proof of Armstrong's doping has always been there. Power doesn't lie. In the same way, the power outputs of some of the riders in today's generation (Contador and Froome being two of the most widely quoted examples) are huge red flags. 
If we really wanted full transparency on doping, a simple solution would be to make race power data open to the public for every rider. I guarantee there would be quite a few surprises.

// thread.


----------



## Chris96

TrainingPeaks | Free Training Log, Training Plans and Food Diary


In last years Vuelta Froome put out 410w for the 47km TT. That puts his FTP at about 5.8 W/Kg. I would imagine that Wiggins couldn't put out more than 6W/kg for an hour(420w).


----------



## Lelandjt

I think in road cycling people underestimate the importance of talent more than other sports. It's easy to watch a slopestyle rider do some amazing jump and realize they were born with abilities you will never have. When all that matters is the ability to make power and do it for a long time people always talk about training without realizing how much easier it is for some people than others.


----------



## JackDaniels

I'm more surprised with the lower power numbers compared to the speed. When I see a pro race file that shows 230w for 4 hours, I think, well I can do that. Then I see it was an average speed of 24mph with 8k feet of climbing and I realized I would have been left alone in a puddle, wimpering...


----------



## Soma_rider

I'm not too sure where all the confusion is coming from. These aren't guys who work with an online coach, putting in 10 hours a week on a computrainer. These are the best cyclists in the world, training 5-6 hours a day during the winter, doing constant, specific threshold work at altitude, use a team of people, that keep them focused and when they're not "training", they're resting. For all of you who assume they must be doping, because you bought a power-meter and spent hundreds on some coaching program, but can only hold 245 watts for 20mins, get a grip. Stop being so lazy and calling people cheats, until you've put the time in the saddle that they have.


----------



## spade2you

I'll agree that the power number is really high, doping nor not. I question if that was really his power average. Perhaps normalized power or power during certain sections. The number seems sensationalized or exaggerated a bit.


----------



## kbiker3111

I think this is the article in question. It has since been removed but I recall the number he was targeting being closer to 450 than 490.

Bradley Wiggins memoir: Your lead is intact, you're going to win the Tour | Sport | The Guardian

edit: Also, the number doesn't really mean a lot since Wiggo uses those goofy Osym rings which throw off the numbers of the SRM.


----------



## spade2you

kbiker3111 said:


> I think this is the article in question. It has since been removed but I recall the number he was targeting being closer to 450 than 490.
> 
> Bradley Wiggins memoir: Your lead is intact, you're going to win the Tour | Sport | The Guardian
> 
> edit: Also, the number doesn't really mean a lot since Wiggo uses those goofy Osym rings which throw off the numbers of the SRM.


With the Osym rings, does the SRM still get precise data?


----------



## jspharmd

I OP was just pointing out the difference between the average Joe and the pros. This is done in all sports when a spectator gets a glimpse of the athletic effort it takes to do any sport at the professional level. I am in awe of the power numbers of the pros whether or not they enhance their performace illegally. Those types of power numbers are way beyond my ability ever, regardless of what I do...

I will say to the OP that you will be amazed at the power you will be able to generate if you train at this sport. What used to be a zone 3/4 effort is now a zone 2 effort. Your body will adapt to your training and power will be a clear demonstration of that change.


----------



## looigi

spade2you said:


> With the Osym rings, does the SRM still get precise data?


Good question. Power is torque times angular velocity. Neither needs to be constant as long as they're constantly monitored. Does the SRM monitor the angular velocity of the crank at many points in rotation or does it only count cadence and assume constant angular velocity?


----------



## new2rd

Ok, so I'm positive I saw 488, but I'll be damned if I can find it again. There was a drop down menu to check power numbers from different races, TdF and the Olympic ITT included, but anyway. Either way, the point being is this: Someone mentioned earlier about how impressive power lifters are. I agree, however that is pure power. Putting out 400+ watts for any length of time without your heart exploding just seems ridiculous especially considering these cyclists don't have the legs to squat 1000 lbs.


----------



## aclinjury

Soma_rider said:


> I'm not too sure where all the confusion is coming from. These aren't guys who work with an online coach, putting in 10 hours a week on a computrainer. These are the best cyclists in the world, training 5-6 hours a day during the winter, doing constant, specific threshold work at altitude, use a team of people, that keep them focused and when they're not "training", they're resting. For all of you who assume they must be doping, because you bought a power-meter and spent hundreds on some coaching program, but can only hold 245 watts for 20mins, get a grip. Stop being so lazy and calling people cheats, until you've put the time in the saddle that they have.


The post from Moskowe above is comparing his power ratio to those of the best cyclists in the past, and a lot of them are now proven doper. These were the best in their prime with doping,.. winning multiple TdFs.

If Wiggins is putting out that kind of power non-dope assisted, then he's a true natural talent. But if he's a natural talent, then why hasn't he won anything until now at an age that is past prime age. Usually, a true talent bloom early, not late in their career.

However, I would not the word talent to described these guys.


----------



## aclinjury

Lelandjt said:


> I think in road cycling people underestimate the importance of talent more than other sports. It's easy to watch a slopestyle rider do some amazing jump and realize they were born with abilities you will never have. When all that matters is the ability to make power and do it for a long time people always talk about training without realizing how much easier it is for some people than others.


So how to you distinguish between a natural talent rider from a doped up good rider? Answer is you can't. It's not like basketball or baseball where even a roid user still need the talent to put the ball through a basket or hit the ball with a bat. 
Dope doesn't contribute into much of the talent required to shoot a basketball.

However, in cycling, and many pure endurance sport, dope is a HUGE contributing ingredient to the overall "talent".


----------



## spade2you

looigi said:


> Good question. Power is torque times angular velocity. Neither needs to be constant as long as they're constantly monitored. Does the SRM monitor the angular velocity of the crank at many points in rotation or does it only count cadence and assume constant angular velocity?


I haven't the slightest idea. Now I'm wondering if that number is somehow inflated as an incompatibilty between the SRM and Osym rings.


----------



## kbiker3111

spade2you said:


> With the Osym rings, does the SRM still get precise data?


The SRM is still precise, just not accurate. IE, the numbers are repeatable they just may not represent what is actually happen. For training this isn't the end of the world since its all about making yourself faster. Its only a problem when you try to compare size on the internet.


----------



## kbiker3111

looigi said:


> Good question. Power is torque times angular velocity. Neither needs to be constant as long as they're constantly monitored. Does the SRM monitor the angular velocity of the crank at many points in rotation or does it only count cadence and assume constant angular velocity?


Since the SRM is limited to 1 reading per revolution of the reed switch in the crank, it takes average torque per rev and assumes constant angular velocity.


----------



## spade2you

kbiker3111 said:


> The SRM is still precise, just not accurate. IE, the numbers are repeatable they just may not represent what is actually happen. For training this isn't the end of the world since its all about making yourself faster. Its only a problem when you try to compare size on the internet.


Makes sense. 

That reminds me. When I was just starting out with my Quarq, I had the lowest numbers I had ever heard of. Naturally, most of this is simply because I'm pretty small.


----------



## new2rd

AdamM said:


> There's no question the top pros produce massive watts per kg when they need to, but just as important is that they're very efficient. You'll see often their power output is notably low for large amounts of time as compared to the average. Things like positioning on the bike, learning to follow the right wheels and when to go and when to sit in.


But, they have the abililty to ride hard enough in a break (as Gilbert did today) or work hard at the front as Sky did during the last TdF. Of course, given the opportunity many would enjoy getting pulled around in a big peleton, but the point being is that they have the ability to generate tons of sustainable power and wake up day after day and do it some more.


----------



## Creakyknees

moskowe said:


> Indurain weighed 80 kilos, that's a full 10 kilos more than Wiggins. His power output was never tested super accurately, but even if it was 550 (against the 530 some people put forward) that still gives a w/kg of 6.875. That's much lower than the 7+ w/kg Wiggo supposedly achieved.
> 
> I looked everywhere for info on the power output of Wiggo in the last TT, and the closest I got was one source saying 450. That would give him (supposing a 69-70kg weight) a 6.5+ w/kg, which is already pretty enormous.
> 
> Quite simply, at his weight during the Tour, it is pretty much impossible for him to have averaged 488 watts on a one hour effort. If he had, then you wouldn't need any proof that he doped, for the simple reason that no one's ever reached such a high wattage/kg.
> So yeah...


"The Swallow may fly South with the sun. Or the House Martin or the Plummer may seek warmer climes in winter. Yet these are not strangers to our land."






It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple matter of weight ratios!


----------



## Creakyknees

kbiker3111 said:


> The SRM is still precise, just not accurate. IE, the numbers are repeatable they just may not represent what is actually happen. For training this isn't the end of the world since its all about making yourself faster. Its only a problem when you try to compare size on the internet.



This is very important in all these threads. I've used both SRM and PowerTap and the numbers are different. Even day-to-day SRM can be different if not calibrated correctly. And a lot of the Indurain and even Wiggins stuff has been derived indirectly, which naturally means a greater chance for error. 

Still, though. Those guys are insanely fast. Truly, whether they dope or not, I know that to get to that contract, they beat guys who beat guys who beat guys who are faster than anyone I've ever raced against. Ask around, when civvies like us ride with a real pro on top form and s/he lights the afterburners, it's all over. 

And even their cruise mode is so much faster than a really good TTer in the amateur ranks.


----------



## Fireform

Creakyknees said:


> Still, though. Those guys are insanely fast. Truly, whether they dope or not, I know that to get to that contract, they beat guys who beat guys who beat guys who are faster than anyone I've ever raced against. Ask around, when civvies like us ride with a real pro on top form and s/he lights the afterburners, it's all over.
> 
> And even their cruise mode is so much faster than a really good TTer in the amateur ranks.


We had a good example of that in the 2011 Gran Fondo in Miami, where Jan Ullrich and Gilberto Simoni were the pro guests. They were in the lead peloton with the local hotshots, who wouldn't give them any peace. The lads kept jumping off the front, trying to provoke a reaction, until finally they peloton turned back into the wind and Jan and Gilberto dropped the whole pack of 40 or so with their jaws hanging.

Jan looked pretty fit for somebody many years in retirement (evidently he'd layed off the donuts for a while), but still.


----------



## Creakyknees

Here, compare the results from LA's first "comeback TT" at Gruene in 2008. After the TT he said his position was all wrong and his power numbers were obviously way off his best, having barely started his re-training process. 

Still he took 2+ minutes out of every badass that Texas had around at the time. For example, google Stefan Rothe. 










I also rode that TT that day, LA took 8 minutes out of me. That's his 33: to my 41: and while I'm not a bass tt'er by any means, I did get 3rd in my cat 3 group. 

I took these photos. When he started and flew past the first chicane turn, I was astounded at how fast he was going. "Like a scalded cat" is the thought that occurred to me. 










He wasn't going any slower when he came back in.


----------



## clonechemist

aclinjury said:


> The post from Moskowe above is comparing his power ratio to those of the best cyclists in the past, and a lot of them are now proven doper. These were the best in their prime with doping,.. winning multiple TdFs.
> 
> If Wiggins is putting out that kind of power non-dope assisted, then he's a true natural talent. *But if he's a natural talent, then why hasn't he won anything until now at an age that is past prime age.* Usually, a true talent bloom early, not late in their career.
> 
> However, I would not the word talent to described these guys.


With this sentence, you are embarassing yourself.... Wiggins won his first world championship on the track at 17. Olympic Gold on the track at age 24. 4th overall in the TdF at age 29 as he started to shift away from track cycling. I think these are the palmares of a natural talent.


----------



## davidka

spade2you said:


> Definitely a combination of being able to train a lot. I'd like to think almost everyone here could generate much better numbers if we could train like that (and gradually build towards that).


Interesting point, this. Part of what makes a pro a pro is that they even can train that much. Most of us lesser gifted people could not aspire to even absorb the training loads they do. We'd flame out. Then there's the little things, some are world class with a weak knee or some other limiter. 

There are guys that go from their 1st race to cat. 1 in their 1st year, the very best among them make it to the pros.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

clonechemist said:


> With this sentence, you are embarassing yourself.... Wiggins won his first world championship on the track at 17. Olympic Gold on the track at age 24. 4th overall in the TdF at age 29 as he started to shift away from track cycling. I think these are the palmares of a natural talent.


Baffling how the myth that Wiggins has somehow come out of nowhere persists. World Junior Champion back in 1997, medals from four consecutive Olympics, medals at seven of the last twelve World Championships, that's quite consistent performance. 

Seven world championships and four gold medals at the Olympics...


----------



## Diopena1

As a mere mortal, I tend to average about 114-145 watts in an hour ride. Thats with varying terrain, and, a 300ft difference in altitude (Im already high as it is in Las vegas over 2200ft above sea level). 
Pros are pros for a reason..... they've dedicated their lives to a sport. I respect that. However, doping tarnishes that view... 
Personally, I can't say that I'll ever be a pro, since I'm not even a Cat 5 racer... but, with the right motivation, you can achieve what you set your mind to. Just bare in mind that it has to be sensible. 

Now 450 watts for a straight hour?!.... highly doubtful, and if it is true, there has to be some influence of doping. But, Murphy's law could also play itself into the situation....


----------



## Local Hero

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Baffling how the myth that Wiggins has somehow come out of nowhere persists. World Junior Champion back in 1997, medals from four consecutive Olympics, medals at seven of the last twelve World Championships, that's quite consistent performance.
> 
> Seven world championships and four gold medals at the Olympics...


That myth is strong in the doping forum echo chamber.


----------



## moskowe

Because we all know track cycling is a great indication of performance in a Grand Tour, right ? Are you guys serious ?
The problem with Wiggins is endurance and recovery, which he had never shown. When he transitioned to road in 2007, he was only good with shorter TT events, the type that was closer to his track background. Then over the course of one year after 2009 he suddenly became leaner, faster, and more powerful. But you know, I'm sure that's because he "trained at altitude" or "developped a faster cadence" or something.


----------



## moskowe

Armstrong is all about the show, and making people look up to him. I highly doubt he showed up to the TT unprepared, rather he probably approached it as an opportunity to once again show everyone.


----------



## Chris96

Blather 'bout Bikes: What's up with those funky rings...?

This article estimates a 4% non round ring inflation factor for SRM power data.


----------



## clonechemist

Wiggins' track event was the individual pursuit, which lasts a shade over 4 minutes. In that time regime, the aerobic system starts to come into play (rather than the anaerobic systems that dominate for efforts <1-2 minutest). Ergo, Wiggin's dominance in the pursuit showed elite, world-class potential in terms of total aerobic output from a young age. 

However, one can not train with maximal dedication to both track racing and 'endurance' road racing (ie grand tour racing) simultaneously. Wiggins competed heavily in track in 2008 in the Olympics and World Championships. After those events, he seems to have given up on track. Given his well-documented world-class aerobic capabilities and a major shift from training for the individual pursuit to training for endurance road racing, I don't find his road breakthough post-track surprising in the least. Taylor Phinney is in the midst of a similar transition right now and seems to be on the way to big things as well (though he's built for one-day races and not mountainous grand tours).


----------



## clonechemist

How about this for talent:
I know of an olympic-level rower who got involved with my cycling team. He rode his rollers a couple times a week just for fun. On his first 20 minute test on the computrainer, he cracked out 400 watts average over 20 minutes. Talent.

Another guy who started with our cycling team was a converted 800m runner. He got waaaaaaaay into cycling in his second year of racing (training 16 hrs/week) and just in that time frame got his FTP right up around 400 watts at a weight of 75 kg. Again: talent.

Frankly, you are coming off as a hater. To use the power-lifting analogy above (which is a good one), just because steroids could take a lifter from a 1000 lb squat to a 1200 lb squat (or a cyclist from 5.5 w/kg ftp to 6 w/kg ftp), that doesn't mean the athlete didn't already possess one-in-a-million talent. I promise you, the difference between you and a talented non-doped athlete is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between that talented non-doped athlete and his dope-fueled doppelganger.


----------



## moskowe

That's a load of crap. Taylor Phinney has shown equal if not better abilities on the road while racing track, yet didn't manage to go from zero to 3rd in the Tour in less than a year. 
Wiggo's super fast transition from track to road is suspicious at best. You can say what you want about his "world class aerobic ability," you dont just get the kind of endurance needed to excel in a grand tour, and the recovery abilities to maintain performance day after day, within a year of fully dedicating yourself to road cycling.


----------



## Local Hero

I am sorry for you. Sorry you cannot believe in miracles!

For one, this conversation belongs in the other forum. For two, the guy didn't come out of nowhere, zero to third, as he was winning the olympics and gold medals in a different type of cycling for the first part of his life. He was an established talent who only recently applied his abilities to grand tours. 

Some people cannot accept that he did it without being on the sauce. I don't know. But I do know the argument that Wiggans "came out of nowhere" is empty.


----------



## asgelle

moskowe said:


> Because we all know track cycling is a great indication of performance in a Grand Tour, right ? Are you guys serious ?


He is. Arthur Lydiard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## clonechemist

moskowe said:


> That's a load of crap.* Taylor Phinney has shown equal if not better abilities on the road while racing track, yet didn't manage to go from zero to 3rd in the Tour in less than a year.*


Once again, you clearly show that you have know idea what you're talking about, or you simply WANT to believe Wiggins is a heavy doper (a point on which I'm agnostic).

Phinney stopped track racing after 2009. 2010 he raced road, but not on a legitimate 'ProTour' schedule, and he did well in, you guessed it, 'shorter TT events', just like Wiggo did after stopping track racing.

Phinney's first full year at a ProTour level, in 2011, he had one major result, in a TT, at a second rate event (the Eneco tour). In his second full year at the ProTour level, his major results were all in TT's. So your point that Phinney has shown 'equal if not better abilities on the _road_ while racing track' is simply not true.

Furthermore, the fact that Wiggins was doing more road racing at a ProTour level from 2004-2008 (while still racing/dominating track) is consistent with the fact that he immediately found a higher level of road-racing prowess upon stopping the track racing than did Phinney.

I don't think Wiggins' 2009 TdF result is, on it's own, any more 'suspicious' (your word) than that of Voeckler, Hesjedal, Christian VdV, or Tom Danielson's top 10 results that they've posted. Sometimes everything lines up in a rider's favor, and said rider can slide into the top 10 or top 5 without ever having to do anything other than following wheels and holding on for dear life, and getting lucky with crashes, field splits, etc.


----------



## Ghost234

It is hard for many amatuers to grasp the reality of what many pro riders can do. Wiggins doing 450w for an hour, seems exceptional, but I think it may be heightened a bit because of his book and the O-rings contributing a little extra to his power. If he was producing 6.7w/kg for an hour, then Froome was likely pushing even higher on the climbs - doubtful. 

Whether or not he is doping is hard to say. While his performance was impressive, there is little evidence outside of conjecture that he actually used anything. I've lived with a few pro riders and I've seen what they are capable of. Training 4-6 hours a day, for several years does incredible things, especially if they have a natural talent. One of the riders I lived with was an FTP of 5.7w/kg, and he was only 22, and started riding 2 years earlier. Another good friend of mine came to cycling from a running background, he dominated in running cross country, but when he came to cycling - he blew everyone out of the water. He doesn't really train (commutes an hour to work), but he was winning cat 1 races within a year of picking up the sport. He turned down pro contracts simply because he wanted a career in the field he studied in university for. I could hardly imagine what kind of strength he could do if he dedicated himself to training for 5-10 years. 

I do believe that 6.5w/kg is certainly achievable without PED's. While I do believe we should be skeptical, we shouldn't simply make accusations without some kind of evidence.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> I am sorry for you. Sorry you cannot believe in miracles!


Haven't you blasted people who believe in miracles once or twice?


----------



## AdamM

> Some people cannot accept that he did it without being on the sauce. I don't know. But I do know the argument that Wiggans "came out of nowhere" is empty.


I agree in regard to Wiggins. I think if folks consider the route for the 2012 TDF which was an almost perfect fit for Wiggins strengths and that Contador had to sit it out, his win isn't that surprising. 

Froome is a bit of mystery though, but then in the Vuelta he got exposed pretty easily by Conti, so maybe it's a tallest midget deal.


----------



## den bakker

AdamM said:


> I agree in regard to Wiggins. I think if folks consider the route for the 2012 TDF which was an almost perfect fit for Wiggins strengths and that Contador had to sit it out, his win isn't that surprising.
> 
> Froome is a bit of mystery though, but then in the Vuelta he got exposed pretty easily by Conti, so maybe it's a tallest midget deal.


right. being helper and all here's some of the smaller midgets he beat
3 Vincenzo Nibali
4 Jurgen Van Den Broeck 
5 Tejay van Garderen 
6 Haimar Zubeldia Agirre 
7 Cadel Evans 
by a rather solid margin at that. 

any chance my current knee injury will provide the same benefits as a parasite infection?


----------



## aclinjury

All this talk about natural talent, Olympic medals, track medals, W/Kg, all nice and cool, but we all know that in the world of cycling at this moment, the spectacle will be dueling with Contador at TdF 2013 for the yellow jersey, and Wiggo is backing out of the contest with that great W/Kg number? Got it.


----------



## moskowe

First, Phinney didn't stop racing track in 2009, he stopped in 2010. He won a gold medal in individual pursuit in March.
Secondly, Phinney won the U-23 Paris Roubaix in both 2009 when he was still doing track, and 2010, his first year out of track, not even on full schedule, as you so aptly mentioned. Obviously he mainly wins TTs because of his track background, same as Wiggins, but he hasn't only won short events.

The fact that Wiggins was doing more road racing in 2004-2008 as he was doing track is entirely irrelevant: Wiggins is 32, Phinney is 22. Take Wiggins at age 22, what had he done on the road ? Nothing. Obviously having had a longer career on track, he had more opportunities to dabble on the road at the same time. Still, for all his time doing races on the road while he was doing track, when did Wiggins ever win a longer event ? 
Wiggins completed his first grand tour in at 24, and finished 123rd. Phinney finished his at 22, arguably coming in 150 something. I think there's more than enough evidence to say that Phinney is at least as good as Wiggins on the road. If any case is to be made as to why Wiggins is currently better, it would be because of his age rather than anything else. i.e. Phinney still needs to develop, blah blah blah.

I maintain that Wiggins' performance in 2009 is suspicious. He hadn't shown any signs of performance in longer events until then, and suddenly became one of the best. You just have to look at his GT record and his winning record. Then again, I also agree that Voeckler's performance in 2011 was highly suspicious (and apparently the French authorities thought so as well), and Danielson is pretty much a confirmed doper already, since he's been outed by both Vaughters and Tilford. For Hesjedal and Vdv, I confess to not having followed either of them enough to take position. Being very fond of everything Canadian, I'm also unfortunately partial to Hesjedal, the same way brits are partial to Wiggo.


----------



## moskowe

Please elaborate.


----------



## cyclesport45

Creakyknees said:


> "The Swallow may fly South with the sun. Or the House Martin or the Plummer may seek warmer climes in winter. Yet these are not strangers to our land."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple matter of weight ratios!



Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.


----------



## asgelle

moskowe said:


> I maintain that Wiggins' performance in 2009 is suspicious.


That's a dodge. Anything can be "suspicious." Then if he's found out later you can claim you were right, but if he is shown to be natural, you can say you were still right because you were only asking questions.


moskowe said:


> ... and Danielson is pretty much a confirmed doper already, since he's been outed by both Vaughters and Tilford.


This is very curious. Why would you use second hand sources like Vaughters and Tilford especially since Tilford has no direct knowledge but bases his charges on nothing more than rumor and innuendo, while we have the affidavit from Danielson himself outlining what he did.


----------



## moskowe

Fine. I believe that he doped. If he didn't, then I was wrong. I also believe Europcar used doping products at least in 2011. If they didn't, then I was also wrong. 

About Danielson, I was recalling the whole fiasco when Vaughters outed him on cyclingnews and Tilford wrote that anyone with knowledge of the US circuit knew for a long time that he was doping. I skimmed through his deposition and didn't pay too much attention to it, I must confess :blush2: I was more interested in what was new, i.e. what the others had to say, especially Hincapie. Plus the whole "I only started in 2004, I swear, then I stopped in 2007" thing didn't seem exceedingly trustworthy.


----------



## ultimobici

moskowe said:


> First, Phinney didn't stop racing track in 2009, he stopped in 2010. He won a gold medal in individual pursuit in March.
> Secondly, Phinney won the U-23 Paris Roubaix in both 2009 when he was still doing track, and 2010, his first year out of track, not even on full schedule, as you so aptly mentioned. Obviously he mainly wins TTs because of his track background, same as Wiggins, but he hasn't only won short events.


Yeah, that P-R was a stellar win against outstanding opponents, none of whom register a flicker of recognition.

To compare Phinney's dabbling on the track to Wiggins's dominance is laughable. Sure he's a talented rider, thanks to his parents' genes, but he ain't the second coming! He will never win a Grand Tour


----------



## moskowe

Yeah Wiggins was really dominant in the track. How many Individual Pursuit world titles did he get before 22 ? That's right, none.
I never said Phiney would win a Grand Tour. I'm saying using track accomplishment as a measure for road ability is ridiculous.


----------



## ultimobici

moskowe said:


> Yeah Wiggins was really dominant in the track. How many Individual Pursuit world titles did he get before 22 ? That's right, none.
> I never said Phiney would win a Grand Tour. I'm saying using track accomplishment as a measure for road ability is ridiculous.


1997 - Junior World Pursuit Champion aged 17. Good enough?

To use a track pursuiter's ability as an indicator of road potential is perfectly reasonable. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, it is a predominantly aerobic discipline and there are many previous top road men & Grand Tour winners who had a background on the track in the points race and pursuit. There seems to be an assumption that all trackies are built like Bill Huck or Jens Fiedler, ignoring the likes of Anquetil & Coppi to name two. If we were talking about a rider from the Kilo or Keirin you'd have a very valid point, but a pursuit is an exercise in not going into oxygen debt, which is key to the road.


----------



## moskowe

Just fyi, at that age Phinney was already Junior World TT Champ. A year later he was Junior World Individual Pursuit Champion. I know Phinney is too young to predict still, but he shows a lot more promise on the road than Wiggins did, and arguably showed at least as much on the track. This is irrelevant to the thread, I just like Phinney.

I should have rather written, using track accomplishment in pursuit as the ONLY explanation for a cyclist's road ability is ridiculous. Even good track pursuiters need a transition period to adapt to the road. And even then, a longer transition period needs to be made to adapt to GTs. 
Wiggins did take 2-3 years off the track from 2005 to 2007. His endurance in long-distance events during that period was still miserable. However, lo and behold, during his road "comeback" after the olympic games in 2008, he suddenly went from 120th to top 20 in all his GTs. For you guys the simple fact that "he was a successful track pursuiter" is enough to explain that. For me it isn't. 

By the way Coppi was successful on the road long before he was successful on the track.


----------

