I appear to be a bit of a diesel when it comes to cycling (and running). I noticed the same when racing at the velodrome - plenty of people were quicker than me over the shorter sprint distances, but I was competitive (even won at times) over the longer distance stuff.
Same with me Steve - although explosive bursts probably assume someone in their prime from an age POV
Paul, you are right with regards to the very simply Lim method of analysis. It's 10% out on that climb. For most of us it's fine but the original point was being made using far more advanced modelling - modelling used by top sports scientists. Even allowing for minor errors, I still think Sky could remove the doubts by simply publishing the SRM file - or making available to interested parties.
Cutting, I used the AX climb as it was one of the few where the GC contender worked at maximal effort for the whole climb - which is rare in the absence of a mountain TT. It's interesting that it came at the end of a 195km stage but that should not have impacted the performance to a significant degree.
With regards to the other riders in 2013, that really is the point. None of the other riders climbed at rates that caused many experienced commentators to raise their eyebrows. All of the other contenders were below the thresholds that scientists have set for human physiology and below those of acknowledged dopers. Only Froome's was not.
Of other climbs I really don't know of maximal efforts being applied. Such is stage racing, a GC contender only really attacks and solos when needed over the three weeks - which is very rare. In the TT they will of course, but Froome had never excelled at those prior to being taken under Brailsford's wing at a fairly late stage.
With regards to Paul, using total wattage as opposed to w/kg is like a Tory Brexit politician on BBC News. Even if we take Lim's simplistic climbing model over those of Vayer and Ferrari we still end up with a w/kg of 6.1 versus Dowsett's 5.6. The accusations obviously rely on far more complex modelling and are generally accepted within the sport as being accurate enough that their findings are worthy of discussion.
Bear in mind also that, two years later when Sky released some power data for the climb to Pierre St Martin (the 2015 tour), Froome managed 414w for twice the length of time. Virtually all cyclists I know will lose 5% over that period, hence the difference in calcluating CP60 and CP20 or 30 Paul. Before you come back with the Osymetric chainring argument (
) , two points would be that the Stages used by Sky allegedly allows for any over estimation.
What I am saying is that Froome's performances raise doubts in the eyes of many sports scientists in the same way that others have with the increasingly advanced understanding of sports physiology. I would love the guy to be clean - he is British afterall and appears to be personable. I just find the figures difficult to accept - and I am hardly alone in that conclusion. The veil of secrecy surrounding British Cycling and Sky hardly helps here.