4 ms·
I listened to Sallet's interview on iTV4. He claimed three possibilities (paraphrased) 1) Unique physiology, 2) drugs, 3) mechanical enhancements. Sallet failed
by musesum 11y ago
I listened to Sallet's interview on iTV4. He claimed three possibilities (paraphrased) 1) Unique physiology, 2) drugs, 3) mechanical enhancements. Sallet failed to mention 4) wrong inputs to the model. When the interviewer challenged him on that, his retort was that his model was correct.
I find it ironic that both Sallet and Armstrong benefit from doubt on Froome's performance - as it validates their own agendas.
Though, perhaps Sallet got it right with 1) The two leaders in the tour grew up training at high elevations. Perhaps, the next wave of cheating will involved epigenetics. I expect the 2035 TdF to be highly suspect.
[Edit spell correction]
- BenjiBajing 11y ago> 4) wrong inputs to the model. And a wrong model. There're a lot of calculators out there, e.g. [1]. Some more, some less sophisticated. But they all provide rules by thumb at best. It starts at the mechanical losses, rolling resitance and aerodynamics (it's often neglected on calculations regarding climbs). Does his model take wind into account? [1] http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
- musesum 11y agoInteresting link. What? No entry for time spent out of the saddle? How much drafting? What brand of rims? Tires? Beard? Perhaps measuring direct inputs would be better. I notice that the kreuzotter model was tested with SRM cranks. I wonder if a universally applied power meter for all riders would work? Somewhat akin to the Dimension Data GPS trackers attached to the rider's seats, this year. If everyone has one, then it is an even playing field. The problem is getting an accurate strain gauge that would work for different bikes, pedals, shoes. Plus, be consistent enough to not yield false data, given weather, crashes, mechanicals, and whatnot.