Fiets.nl

stephan68 schreef:De nummers 1 t/m 3 zijn sowieso verdacht wat mij betreft (Valverde is (ook) een pakhaas). Dat maakt de prestatie van Mollema en LtD alleen maar mooier. Of ben ik nou te naïef?

fiedoo schreef:kent er iemand de tijden van Armstrong en van Froome op ax-les 3 domaines?
Armstrong heeft daar ook de basis van zijn tourzege gelegd volgens mij.

zorroi schreef:

fiedoo schreef:kent er iemand de tijden van Armstrong en van Froome op ax-les 3 domaines?
Armstrong heeft daar ook de basis van zijn tourzege gelegd volgens mij.

Ze kwamen zonet in beeld. Precieze tijden weet ik niet meer maar Froome stond op plek 3 aller tijden zo'n 15 seconden achter Armstrong dacht ik.

For now, three parting thoughts:

1. It was fast, very fast. The 23:14 ascent of Ax-3-Domaines puts Froome in third on the all-time list for the climb, behind only Laiseka and Armstrong in 2001. The VAM of 1715 m/h converts to a power output of 6.3 W/kg (Ferrari method) and about 6.5 W/kg with other models (CPL, rst). Very fast.

2. Before today's performance is instantly condemned as proof of nefarious pharmacology in the sport, keep in mind what I've tried to emphasize many times over the last few years, which is the context of the climb and variability around performance. For example, this climb was done in Stage 12, 13 and 14 of the 2001, 2003 and 2005 Tours, respectively. The earlier placement in week 1 as the first climb of the Tour may affect performance. Also, variability in conditions (particularly wind and heat) make it impossible to make 'guilt by performance' proclamations. Let's wait to analyze the entire Tour, the collection of climbs, and then compare to history's known dopers. The problem when you get too close in is a kind of "performance pixelation", so step back and see the whole screen. That will happen in time.

3. Having said that, what was noteworthy today were the enormous gaps created on the final climb. That's because with the exception of Froome and perhaps Porte, the rest of the peloton performed in a manner that is typical of cycling over the last few years. Their performances were consistent with post-biological passport levels, and matched or even fell short of the prediction models. It was only Froome and Sky who exceeded them. Therefore, skepticism is normal, and failing to appreciate that will come only from extreme naivety or patriotism. History has taught us the value of some healthy cynicism, and if this level continues for three weeks, it makes for an uncomfortable Tour, of that there is no doubt.

liviolivius schreef:En natuurlijk deze analyse over Froome http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/what- ... is-froome/

of deze

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54770 ... rning-shot