Can you win the TdF if you TT like a Fred?
Mike Jacoubowsky
AC is in a whole different category than the rest, with or without
doping. Somebody (Johan?) taught the guy to TT a few years back, and if
he shows up at the starting line, I can't see anyone challenging him.
Even if AC were clean and the challengers were all doped to the gills.
The TdS demonstrated yet again the importance of the time trial; anybody
still putting their hopes with a GC contender from Leopard/Trek has to
be a believer in miracles, one of which would have to be Andy (or Frank)
generally keeping even with AC and then somehow putting two minutes+
into him on a mountain stage. Not very plausible! Or something
ridiculous like including the Passage du Gois, with AC taking over for
Zulle.
If AC weren't riding, this TdF might (once again) be Cadel's to lose.
Beyond that?
One more point. Are great TTers born or made? Looking at Bruyneel's
successes, I'm opting for made. Whether through training or doping, both
of which *all* athletes (and their DSs) have had access to, Bruyneel's
the guy who turns out the winners. Would guys like Frank and Andy have
had better success under Bruyneel, or would that simply not have worked
out because their not Bruyneel sort of people?
Discuss.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
A. Dumas
> AC [...] Somebody (Johan?) taught the guy to TT a few years back
He always did well in TTs as a junior and U23.
FAT
1. The mind. The successful climbers seem to able to push well past their
limits to hang on to a wheel. They have the option of attacking only when
they feel good. The ability to take yourself to your limit, and hold it
there, with nothing to concentrate on except the pain and having no recovery
time, defines the ability to TT. There are multiple climbing opportunities
(some better than others) to attack or where you just have to hold on to
someone's wheel during a stage race, and you know you will have recovery
time on the decent. Not so with the TT, usually just one opportunity or
two, on a day or place not of your choosing. And no recovery time, no time
to get back on. Maybe something like this is Levi's problem in reverse. He
knows what his limit is and stays at it or below preventing him from
attacking on climbs. LA and AC (and yes Indurain) knew/know how to do both.
When the TdF tried to Armstrong proof the course they added an uphill TT at
Chamrousse and Alpe d'Huez, I think to test if he could do both at the same
time.
2. Power to weight ratio. The lighter climbers have high P/W values than a
larger rider. As the rode flattens out (as they tend to do for the TT), P/W
becomes less of a factor than wind resistance. All other things being
equal, when you double your speed power output will have to go up 8 times.
A small increase in speed requires a huge increase in power. This tends to
favor larger riders, Levi being one of the exceptions. I think Lemond's
performance in the '89 TT on the final day was exceptional, in no small
part, because he reduced his wind resistance much more than Fignon (RIP)
did.
#1 can be learned. #2 can't.
Another problem might be technology, specifically HR monitors. Years ago
Bill Rogers (when he was winning marathons) was asked to try out a heart
rate monitor. He was given a HR and told to hold it there. He did. But
afterwards he said he was sore of days, and swore he would never use one
again. Was he winning at less than his potential or did his body tell him
what was right and the HR monitor gave him the wrong information?
Johan was a great climber in his day (at least out of ditches)....and the
Passage du Gois is controlled this year. Guess they learned their lesson.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
news:g5KdnRETjq65UWPQ...@earthlink.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> a huge increase in power. This tends to favor larger riders, Levi
> being one of the exceptions. I think Lemond's performance in the '89
> TT on the final day was exceptional, in no small part, because he
> reduced his wind resistance much more than Fignon (RIP) did.
>
> #1 can be learned. #2 can't.
How do we explain Levi's TT abilities then? He's a very small guy, looks
more like a Columbian climber than a TT guy. The chemistry argument only
goes so far; there's no monopoly on the ability of a rider to get the
good stuff, if desired. I suspect the riders adapt, en masse, to
whatever changes come to cycling in that regard.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"FAT" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:itnqnn$o7g$1...@dont-email.me...
FAT
with your other points.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
news:SqednUjheIQY62LQ...@earthlink.com...
ilan
Concerning #2, recall that in the 1995 Tour, Indurain caught Armstrong
after only 16km, and he said he had no clue how anyone could ride that
fast. Armstrong subsequently managed to get to Indurain's level while
losing over 10kg.
That is probably the one question I would like to ask Armstrong, if I
ever get the chance.
Personally, I think that the answer is mostly in his improved
position, Armstrong had the most horrible scrunched up riding style
pre-cancer. The other is learning higher pedalling cadence more
consistent with his physiology.
For the cynics, I think the drug question is meaningless, EPO was
already universal in 1995, and ever other lousy TT guy equivalent to
Armstrong had the same opportunity from 1995 to 1999.
This is consistent with my current thoughts about time trialing, I
think it comes down to learning how to pedal and for many riders that
is just too hard (learning) people underestimate the stupidity of
professional riders. That goes a long way to explaining Armstrong's
improvement, as well as smart guys like Jalabert or Kelly. Look at
Vinokourov who can't time trial, though he's definitely not an idiot,
his pedaling technique has been proved mediocre, e.g., his two up
sprint against Comesso in the Tour in which he was ridiculously
overgeared.
Regarding Andy Schleck' lousy ITT yesterday, recall that the was
pretty much even with Contador in the last ITT of last year's Tour,
and that in 2008, Sastre rode the Dauphine ITT like a tourist losing 5
minutes to Cadel Evans, before equalling himat the last Tour ITT.
-ilan
FAT
contenders with a good TT) had access to wind tunnels, etc. to fine tune
that. Plus, their adoption of triathlete style positioning and equipment
helps to mitigate poor positions (short cuts taken to make a big motor a
fast cyclist!!).
Pedaling style and cadence I hadn't thought of. That could be huge change
that could be learned. Could that be Levi's secret? Other than praying to
mantis'.
"ilan" wrote in message
news:4cee5fcc-2dca-4cc5...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Ben Trovato
>
> This is consistent with my current thoughts about time trialing, I
> think it comes down to learning how to pedal and for many riders that
> is just too hard (learning) people underestimate the stupidity of
> professional riders. That goes a long way to explaining Armstrong's
> improvement, as well as smart guys like Jalabert or Kelly. Look at
> Vinokourov who can't time trial, though he's definitely not an idiot,
> his pedaling technique has been proved mediocre, e.g., his two up
> sprint against Comesso in the Tour in which he was ridiculously
> overgeared.
>
The Dunning-Krueger effect comes to mind... although you'd think a
hard number like time would have a mitigating effect, some people are
just impervious to the to the reality principle.
ilan
Well successful guys like Cunego, etc., have been winning ever since
they started racing, and continued winning as professionals, so it may
be inconceivable for them to change their whole riding style. The
Schlecks may become the paroxysm now that they are running their own
team.
That's what makes the Armstrong case so exceptional, a rider who
completely changes his riding style, including the simple act of
pedaling, in order to progress as a rider.
It's hard to think of other examples. I just read of a biography of
Robert Millar, and it turns out that he never did any training on
mountains, he mostly did Belgian kermesses in order to learn how to
improve his obvious weakness riding in fast, flat, rough pavement
situations with big heavy guys. Sounds like the training the Shlecks
should be doing.....
-ilan
Brad Anders
bike, rocked all over the place, and had a really plodding cadence.
Didn't look like he worked on his ITT stuff at all. Plus that
atrocious pink fork. When I saw that poke into the frame, I knew he
was going to get his ass kicked.
A. Dumas
> be inconceivable for them to change their whole riding style. The
> Schlecks may become the paroxysm now that they are running their own
> team.
I did not know its meaning and had to look it up. So, while I am not a
great expert on the correct use of the word paroxysm, I ask: did you
mean paragon? To me that seems to fit better. Anyway, not first use.
Simply Fred
> Plus that atrocious pink fork. When I saw that poke into the frame, I knew he
> was going to get his ass kicked.
Pink forks are too gay to explode.
ilan
Thanks, paroxysm worked by keeping the reader's attention. I would
have tried to use "avatar" but it has changed its meaning in recent
years.
-ilan
RicodJour
Maybe he meant paradigm?
R
Fred Bucephalus Birchmore
ilan
Looks like I used the French meaning which is appropriate but doesn't
carry over into English: "Le plus haut degré d'un phénomène :
L'incendie était à son paroxysme" .http://www.larousse.com/en/
dictionnaires/francais/paroxysme
-ilan
A. Dumas
Ah right, thanks.
Frederick the Great
<399e16a8-cfe9-4a0b...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
An etymological dictionary of English tells me
that oxygen has the same root.
3. Paroxysm derives from Medieval French-French
paroxysme, itself perhaps via Medieval Latin from
Medical Greek paroxusmos, from paroxunein, to irritate,
literally to sharpen excessively: para, beyond+oxunein,
to sharpen, from oxus, sharp.
Paragraph 1 for oxygen.
1. French oxygène (Lavoisier, 1786): oxy, from Greek
oxus, sharp, pungent, acid+the element -gène.
--
Old Fritz
Simply Fred
> Paragraph 1 for oxygen.
> 1. French oxygène (Lavoisier, 1786): oxy, from Greek
> oxus, sharp, pungent, acid+the element -gène.
Although Lavoisier nationalized the discovery.
<http://acswebcontent.acs.org/landmarks/landmarks/priestley/index.html>
Lavoisier had a point though, dephlogisticated air doesn't sound as cool
as oxygen, if anything it sounds like someone air full of snot globules.
ilan
> In article
> <399e16a8-cfe9-4a0b-9103-a66115b4c...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
A good way to figure out such words is to translate to German:
Sauerstoff, since they decided to ditch dead roots. Unfortunately, it
seems to fail for oxymoron.
-ilan
Frederick the Great
<ef014049-4491-42c2...@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A good way to figure out such words is to translate to German:
> Sauerstoff, since they decided to ditch dead roots. Unfortunately, it
> seems to fail for oxymoron.
Figuring out one's own etymology will fail most of
the time. If I intend to be wrong I just shoot off
my mouth, and do not waste any time on thinking.
Look at that. What does brine cured cabbage have to
do with oxygen?
--
Old Fritz
Benjo Maso
> "ilan" schreef in bericht news:4cee5fcc-2dca-4cc5-be12-01e860f5d566
> Concerning #2, recall that in the 1995 Tour, Indurain caught Armstrong
> after only 16km, and he said he had no clue how anyone could ride that
> fast. Armstrong subsequently managed to get to Indurain's level while
> losing over 10kg.
No, he didn't. According to Ed Coyle in September 1993 Armstrong weighted
75,1 kg (according the Motorola team guide 74,91). Ten years later Armstrong
declared to be satisfied with "a low 74kg", which, by the way, was his
weight just before the Tour. Of course, hors saison he weighted much more
(79-80 kg), but thtat's another matter.
> That is probably the one question I would like to ask Armstrong, if I
> ever get the chance.
> Personally, I think that the answer is mostly in his improved
> position, Armstrong had the most horrible scrunched up riding style
> pre-cancer. The other is learning higher pedalling cadence more
> consistent with his physiology.
> For the cynics, I think the drug question is meaningless, EPO was
> already universal in 1995, and ever other lousy TT guy equivalent to
> Armstrong had the same opportunity from 1995 to 1999.
The drug question isn't meaningless. Takings EPO isn't enough. The
Gewiss-Ballan team made a sensation 1994, not because they were taking EPO
(which was already in 1987 or 1988 introduced in the peloton), but because
they knew how to use it and how to combine it with other drugs.
>This is consistent with my current thoughts about time trialing, I
> think it comes down to learning how to pedal and for many riders that
> is just too hard (learning) people underestimate the stupidity of
> professional riders. That goes a long way to explaining Armstrong's
> improvement, as well as smart guys like Jalabert or Kelly. Look at
> Vinokourov who can't time trial, though he's definitely not an idiot,
> his pedaling technique has been proved mediocre, e.g., his two up
> sprint against Comesso in the Tour in which he was ridiculously
> overgeared.
I wouldn't say Vinokourov cannot time trial. He won the ITT in the 2006
Vuelta and finished three or four times third in the Tour (after Armstrong
and Ullrich).
Benjo
Benjo Maso
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:4cee5fcc-2dca-4cc5...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
This is consistent with my current thoughts about time trialing, I
think it comes down to learning how to pedal and for many riders that
is just too hard (learning) people underestimate the stupidity of
professional riders. That goes a long way to explaining Armstrong's
improvement, as well as smart guys like Jalabert or Kelly. Look at
Vinokourov who can't time trial, though he's definitely not an idiot,
his pedaling technique has been proved mediocre, e.g., his two up
sprint against Comesso in the Tour in which he was ridiculously
overgeared.
Nobody had a worse pedaling technique than Michel Pollentier "the first
cyclist who doesn't know how to ride a bicycle" (L'Equipe). A small, skinny
guy. All the same, an excellent time trialist. Beat Merckx in the Tour 1974,
Moser in the Giro, etc.
Benjo
Simply Fred
> This is consistent with my current thoughts about time trialing, I
> think it comes down to learning how to pedal
Benjo Maso wrote:
> Nobody had a worse pedaling technique than Michel Pollentier "the first
> cyclist who doesn't know how to ride a bicycle" (L'Equipe). A small,
> skinny guy. All the same, an excellent time trialist. Beat Merckx in the
> Tour 1974, Moser in the Giro, etc.
Pedaling technique is a red herring.
ilan
My information is that Armstrong's 1995 weight was approximately 84kg.
To restate, Armstrong TT improvement must be due to position and
technique because of the 200+ other pros using similar drugs, none of
them had similar improvement. Moreover, everyone can improve his
position, but it takes a complete rethinking of everything you've ever
done to change pedaling style.
It appears to me that Johan Bruyneel who was known as one of the
leading proponents of high cadence spinning (I recall reading at the
time that he spent hours training in a 42x15 fixed gear, which leads
to fast spinning at the speeds he trained) somehow managed to figure
out that this was the key to Armstrong's progression as a grand tour
rider.
It appears to me that climbing an flat TT pedaling style are
fundamentally different and different muscles are used in different
ways. I just heard an interview with David Zabriskie who directly
referred to this by stating that climbing requires constant pressure
on the pedals, which doesn't suit him. Conversely, climbers used to
putting constant pressure when climbing could apply it to flat time
trialing thereby wasting energy, that is, no getting the muscular
power to the pedals.
-ilan
Brad Anders
> It appears to me that climbing an flat TT pedaling style are
> fundamentally different and different muscles are used in different
> ways. I just heard an interview with David Zabriskie who directly
> referred to this by stating that climbing requires constant pressure
> on the pedals, which doesn't suit him. Conversely, climbers used to
> putting constant pressure when climbing could apply it to flat time
> trialing thereby wasting energy, that is, no getting the muscular
> power to the pedals.
Andy Coggan and I had a discussion here on how pedaling forces differ
between climbing and riding in the flats. I don't think we came to any
kind of conclusion as to why guys who are good climbers often aren't
good TT'er's and vice versa. Sure, position and equipment make a
difference, but there's something more going on here. Technique? There
are plenty of good ITT'er's who spin, some who push huge gears, some
who are slick as snot, others who rock all over. Indurain had a
terrible position on the bike, we used to call him "monkey on a
stick" (no relation to Magilla). A guy like Indurain simply should not
have been as good a climber as he was (dope or not) - but he was.
One thing that's often discounted is the mental side of it. You
remember Kevin Metcalfe? I heard he just set a national 40K record for
50+ (or something like that). He told us that he was able to hold a
180 bpm heart rate for a full 40K, that's got to be insanely difficult
to do and not simply give in to the pain. Is climbing different?
If I had any answers, maybe I'd climb and be able to ride in the flats
better. Unfortunately, not.
Benjo Maso
"ilan" schreef in bericht
news:59abf761-0023-4f0d...@em7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
My information is that Armstrong's 1995 weight was approximately 84kg.
Certainly not. Even Ferrari and Armstrong himself ever claimed his weight
was more than 80kg. Before his illmes his weight fluctuated between 74,9 and
80 kg, from 1999 to 2005 between 74 and 79,7.
To restate, Armstrong TT improvement must be due to position and
technique because of the 200+ other pros using similar drugs, none of
them had similar improvement.
What about Bjarne Riis? Before 1993, the year he said he started taking EPO,
he Riis rode 7 ITT's in the Tour de France (I don't count climbing TT's).
His results: 88th, 64th, 67th, 89th, 138th, 79th. In 1993: 12th, 21th; 1994:
6th; 1995: 2nd, 2nd; 1995: 2nd, 4th; 1996: 2nd; 4th; 1997: 3rd, 93th (the
ITT when he threw away his bike!)
Moreover, everyone can improve his
position, but it takes a complete rethinking of everything you've ever
done to change pedaling style.
It appears to me that Johan Bruyneel who was known as one of the
leading proponents of high cadence spinning (I recall reading at the
time that he spent hours training in a 42x15 fixed gear, which leads
to fast spinning at the speeds he trained) somehow managed to figure
out that this was the key to Armstrong's progression as a grand tour
rider.
According to Daniel Coyle's 'Lance Armstrongs War, it was Michele Ferrari's
idea.
"Ferrari had watched the East Africans come to dominate the long distance
running scene, and, as a former runner, he was fascinated by what seemed a
glaring inefficiency in their form. Rather than the lovely antelope strides
of other runners, the Kenyans ran with short, quick steps. They didn=t run,
they scooted. It was hardly pretty; moreover, it had been shown by many
studies that the ideally efficient running stride was long, not short. All
the same, these inefficient Kenyans
seemed to win an awful lot. An idea began to form.
(...)
"It was a bold idea, one that appealed to Ferrari because it represented a
logical step in the evolution of the ultimate athlete; one who shifts the
stress from powerful but unreliable muscles onto the more resilient
cardiovascular system. They worked with Armstrong to raise his cadence from
the conventional range to 100 rpms, a move that Ferrari regards as the key
to all that has happened since."
It appears to me that climbing an flat TT pedaling style are
fundamentally different and different muscles are used in different
ways. I just heard an interview with David Zabriskie who directly
referred to this by stating that climbing requires constant pressure
on the pedals, which doesn't suit him. Conversely, climbers used to
putting constant pressure when climbing could apply it to flat time
trialing thereby wasting energy, that is, no getting the muscular
power to the pedals.
And yet, some of the best climbers were excellent time trialists as well:
not only Coppi, but also Bobet, Gaul, Merckx, Oca�a, Van Impe, Fignon, etc.
Benjo
Robert Chung
> Andy Coggan and I had a discussion here on how pedaling forces differ
> between climbing and riding in the flats. I don't think we came to any
> kind of conclusion as to why guys who are good climbers often aren't
> good TT'er's and vice versa.
Watts/kg vs. watts/CdA.
> One thing that's often discounted is the mental side of it. You
> remember Kevin Metcalfe? I heard he just set a national 40K record for
> 50+ (or something like that).
50:17 at Sattley. He rode a 50:11 last year but was 49. His SRM file
is here:
http://www.teamspecializedracing.com/K120611A.zip
Jimmy July
Red herrings are red herrings.
Brad Anders
> On Jun 22, 4:29 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Andy Coggan and I had a discussion here on how pedaling forces differ
> > between climbing and riding in the flats. I don't think we came to any
> > kind of conclusion as to why guys who are good climbers often aren't
> > good TT'er's and vice versa.
>
> Watts/kg vs. watts/CdA.
I agree it should be true, but I don't think it completely explains
the difference between two guys like Leipheimer and Cunego. Both have
comparable watts, do you really think a higher CdA is the only factor?
I saw a guy who looked like he was extremely uncomfortable with doing
a TT effort going up against a guy who clearly has worked hard not
only on his position, but his pedal stroke and probably his mental
attitude.
>
> > One thing that's often discounted is the mental side of it. You
> > remember Kevin Metcalfe? I heard he just set a national 40K record for
> > 50+ (or something like that).
>
> 50:17 at Sattley. He rode a 50:11 last year but was 49. His SRM file
> is here:
> http://www.teamspecializedracing.com/K120611A.zip
Thanks. Kevin's always been fast, he's not slowing down very much with
age.
ilan
Though cycling is not a technique sport like swimming of skating, it
seems to me that the technique element must still exist, and it
differs between climbing and flat TT. The problem is that it is
difficult to understand the details of pedaling scientifically. Even
in technique sports, it is sometimes difficult to identify correct
technique, for example, Janet Evans had what appeared at the time to
be bad swimming technique - fast turnover, straight arm recovery - but
since she crushed the "perfect:" East Germans, what was happening in
the water must have been correct. This would explain the seeming
counter-examples like Indurain.
More generally, any theory can be contradicted with sufficient
knowledge of counterexamples. The point I was trying to make is that I
have an intuition as to what is going on, obviously I can't be sure
that I am correct.
-ilan
Robert Chung
> On Jun 22, 6:03 pm, Robert Chung <rechungremovet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 4:29 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Andy Coggan and I had a discussion here on how pedaling forces differ
> > > between climbing and riding in the flats. I don't think we came to any
> > > kind of conclusion as to why guys who are good climbers often aren't
> > > good TT'er's and vice versa.
>
> > Watts/kg vs. watts/CdA.
>
> I agree it should be true, but I don't think it completely explains
> the difference between two guys like Leipheimer and Cunego. Both have
> comparable watts, do you really think a higher CdA is the only factor?
I think it's a large piece but I don't think it's the only thing. See
below.
> I saw a guy who looked like he was extremely uncomfortable with doing
> a TT effort going up against a guy who clearly has worked hard not
> only on his position, but his pedal stroke and probably his mental
> attitude.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Cunego was slower by about 4 seconds /km
than Leipheimer but since he started the day 1:59 ahead he would've
kept the jersey if he'd been faster by 1/8th of a second/km. 1/8th of
a second/km is in the realm where small differences in passive drag
(f'rinstance, using an aero water rather than the standard bottle he
used, or an aero brake rather than the standard brake he used) could
very well have made the difference even though his TT position sucked.
This lack of attention to detail seems consistent with reports of some
of Cunego's other mental attitudes, so you may be right about that. In
addition, pedal stroke or technique is a red herring. A more likely
candidate is sensitivity and response to crank inertial load. When
climbing, CIL is low and good climbers have learned how to "tune"
their power output to the inertial load. For whatever reason, many
riders have difficulty modulating their power to the same degree at
high CIL, which is what we often experience during TTs. You can see
that if you examine a bunch of power files from different riders: in
general, power during climbing is pretty regular, but some riders are
also pretty regular on the flat while others show higher variance. I
suspect Cunego's power fluctuates a lot during high CIL efforts --
though since Cunego stopped using a power meter a while back there's
little chance anyone will ever know (I consider that another clue
about mental attitude). That is, almost everyone's power fluctuates
more during high CIL efforts than low CIL efforts but I suspect the
difference between the two is greater for Cunego than for Leipheimer.
Basically I think Leipheimer (and guys like him) have trained
themselves to monitor and modulate their power during high CIL efforts
more than guys like Cunego.
But I think the main piece is CdA.
ilan
What you write seems to be consistent with Zabriskie's statement that
climbing requires constant pressure on the pedals and that doesn't
work for him. In other words, due to inertia at high speeds, he can
let up and recover, that is, not build up excess fatigue, whereas the
more constant muscular contraction of a climb do him in. Conversely,
the climbers are applying power on high speed flat sections where it
doesn't help forward motion, by using the same muscular effort as on a
climb. At least, that's the way I interpret this.
Speaking of attention to detail, in the Giro ITT, Alberto Contador
started with an empty water bottle cage.
-ilan
Mike Jacoubowsky
> fundamentally different and different muscles are used in different
> ways. I just heard an interview with David Zabriskie who directly
> referred to this by stating that climbing requires constant pressure
> on the pedals, which doesn't suit him. Conversely, climbers used to
> putting constant pressure when climbing could apply it to flat time
> trialing thereby wasting energy, that is, no getting the muscular
> power to the pedals.
>
> And yet, some of the best climbers were excellent time trialists as
> well: not only Coppi, but also Bobet, Gaul, Merckx, Oca�a, Van Impe,
> Fignon, etc.
>
> Benjo
I understand what Z is saying, but I don't think it holds true for
everyone. Climbing, for many, is a mental battle, a search for something
that can keep you going, finding the means to take the pain and embrace
it rather than avoid it. I found time trialing to be a similar endeavor;
actually, even tougher, due to the unchanging nature of the effort. You
against the clock, maybe chasing a rabbit in front or being chased by a
dog behind for motivation, but you couldn't play the mind games with the
other competitors; there was nothing to gain from faking that it's easy
in a TT, there was no direct dynamic with other riders. But the concept
of an hour-long effort without rest has some commonality with both
(climbing and TT).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anton Berlin
> I understand what Z is saying, but I don't think it holds true for
> everyone. Climbing, for many, is a mental battle, a search for something
> that can keep you going, finding the means to take the pain and embrace
> it rather than avoid it. I found time trialing to be a similar endeavor;
> actually, even tougher, due to the unchanging nature of the effort. You
> against the clock, maybe chasing a rabbit in front or being chased by a
> dog behind for motivation, but you couldn't play the mind games with the
> other competitors; there was nothing to gain from faking that it's easy
> in a TT, there was no direct dynamic with other riders. But the concept
> of an hour-long effort without rest has some commonality with both
> (climbing and TT).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
My take - it's mentally easier to climb at high HR levels because you
have no choice. TTs you have to hit a target and hold it for the
duration - takes greater discipline imho. But both are equally hard
physically.
Scott
Another thing at play is that due to the diminished effects of drag
while climbing due to the relatively low speed, you can move all over
the bike, changing positions whenever it suits you, and it helps
instead of hurts your effort. When time trialling you're committed to
a particular, optimal position. Move around on the TT bike and you
may as well throw out a drag chute.
The ability to lock in to one position and the mental discipline to
stay there no matter how much it hurts is something that sets a good
TT'er apart.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:293827f4-b851-445f...@x1g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Another thing at play is that due to the diminished effects of drag
while climbing due to the relatively low speed, you can move all over
the bike, changing positions whenever it suits you, and it helps
instead of hurts your effort. When time trialling you're committed to
a particular, optimal position. Move around on the TT bike and you
may as well throw out a drag chute.
The ability to lock in to one position and the mental discipline to
stay there no matter how much it hurts is something that sets a good
TT'er apart.
=========
And Dave Z, of all people, should know that it's a lot more difficult
having a conversation about cows in a TT than on a climb.
thirty-six
wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Glycogen loading and monitoring means the big guys can get up the
mountain just as fast without fear of blowing up. If glucose intake
is supplemented by a drip, the superhuman efforts become possible. A
long torso will help house an enlarged liver with relative ease, and
the taller guy should always outclass the short guy on the flat.
Saving glycogen is important for the tour rider, and this is done by
taking a free ride whenever possible and soft pedalling when leading
to control pace. In this way large glycogen reserves can be built up
for when the greatest gains can be had for all out efforts. Try
eating a kg of cooked rice (1/2 white 1/2 brown) and you see why a
glucose drip is important for team leaders.
Scott
WTH are you talking about? Glycogen monitoring and not blowing up
means big guys go uphill just as fast without fear of blowing up? I
don't even know what you mean by that, and can't think of a single
example of a big guy going uphill fast enough to make any sense of it
at all. Srsly, what ARE you talking about?
--D-y
Armstrong reportedly spent a lot of time in at least one wind tunnel.
My memory of all this is pretty leaky but didn't he go to College
Station...?
(looking it up and finding something else of interest):
<http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/cunego_windtunnel>
(Where was I/oh yeah):
The huge improvement in his (Armstrong's) TT'ing ability makes the
following obvious, but you can bet every aspect of "TT-ing" was
analyzed to a fare-thee-well and worked on with focus and
determination, and all work was proved "in the lab"-- including
pedaling style (incl. cadence) and, as in the link above, "comfort" on
the bike-- ref. the stories regarding Armstong's repeated rejections
of Trek frame geometry/layout before they gave him something he liked.
Knowing you have the weapons to use makes a big difference in
attitude, which confidence, obviously, breeds success. Very applicable
in an ITT where there are no wheels to follow and your performance is
so naked.
What a difference: to have Indurain or anyone else who is far superior
behind you at the start of a TT and knowing you are about to be
humiliated no matter how hard you try, compared to expecting, as the
solid result of a lot of hard work, to win-- or at the very least show
very well-- before you roll off.
I saw Lance at the Prologue start in Luxembourg in '02. If he was
frightened or even nervous, his next career should be acting.
Of course, there was no one starting behind him that day;
additionally, his family was there, too, which he said he enjoyed, as
he found leaving the children behind for the TdF very stressful. (He
won by two seconds over Jalabert and maybe that was even actually a
surprise, as reported <g>)
It's also tough on your competitors to see someone so focused; the
reputation for intense preparation, including extensive scouting of
parcours (not a very restful activity!), are another aspect of "the
psych"-- "how do you beat this guy?". Well, maybe you don't...
--D-y