V2 cadence: Lance Armstrong-inspired question
Brian
style of cycling than most other riders. His revolutions were faster
(ie. higher cadence), and by most accounts, used his body's energy
more efficiently. As I recall the discussions, his revolutions were
faster and his effort per stoke was lower.
I was roller-skiing up a hill this past week and started to wonder if
a higher cadence would be more efficient for us. With V2 and V1alt,
the power comes in the weight transfer and the drive from the poles.
The gliding is a 'rest' period (or at least that is the way I
rationalise it), so is there something to be learned from Lance in
terms of a higher cadeance?
I'm sure rsn has hosted a similar discussion in the past year, but I
would like to see what people think.
Thanks.
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:beea3c47.02042...@posting.google.com...
> During last year's Tour de France, Lance
> Armstrong used a different
> style of cycling than most other riders. His
> revolutions were faster
> (ie. higher cadence), and by most accounts,
> used his body's energy
> more efficiently.
Take care in using the term "efficient" -- efficient means producing
power at the lowest cost. In a lot of racing situations the winner is
not necessarily the most efficient -- he/she is the one that can
produce _more_ power. Lance's method of riding is probably more
aerobically demanding, so he can produce more power, not be more
efficient.
JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************
JWE
V2s during the hot season), I tried to find the cognate in roller skiing to
Armstrong's awe-inspiring cadence... I can't quite get it. Lance gets to
change his gear inches as need be, shifting and so on, different chain rings
and rear cogs, etc. What can we do on roller skis? Nothing like what a
bicyclist can do to their machine. So, I don't see how we can up-tempo
without sacrificing something really important like follow through and other
types of movement.
On the other hand, when going up hills I definitely DO cut back on power so
that I am covering less ground but doing so in order to keep myself only
slightly below VO2-max, and that way I can move my tempo up since I am not
pushing as heavy an aerobic load with each complete pole-ski cycle. Hmmm...
more to think about.
jwe
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For any journey to become a true adventure,
it must be firmly rooted in a foundation of
financial uncertainty.
"Brian" <bjp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:beea3c47.02042...@posting.google.com...
: During last year's Tour de France, Lance Armstrong used a different
Chequama Mama
For one, as someone else noted, we dont' have the option of changing
gears in quite the same way that I cyclist does.
Think about the people who were really running high tempos at the
Olympics. They were generally the same people that got busted for
controlled substances. (other than the Italians who have been using a
high tempo for years). I think it's just not possible to push high
tempos with the normal aerobic capacity of a person. Think about who
the normal favorites are on the World Cup, etc. The Norwegians and
Swedes normally rank high on anyones list with the Norwegian team
probably being the strongest in the world. (Not trying to offend
anyone, but their consistent performance speaks for itself). Their
technique isn't really focused on riding the glide forever, but they
aren't turning over real fast. I'm not saying they have everything
figured out.
Also, the weight transfer as you mentioned is important for us. Not so
important for a cyclist.
That would be my thought or two
Paul
Brian wrote:
--
remove da MONKEY to reply
Tim Dudley
determinants of performance:
1) Vo2 Max: engine size - how big is the engine;
2) Lactate Threshold: rpms - how high can you race the engine;
3) Economy: miles per gallon - the amount of oxygen that it takes for an
individual athlete to go a given speed; and
4) Strength: the maximum force that can be produced in one all out effort.
So if I understand this correctly, your cadence depends on your lactate
threshold - the higher your LT, the higher cadence you can maintain.
Tim
*this is a really good little booklet, available from Skipost.
Eddy Rapid
"Tim Dudley" <tdu...@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:B8E86216.2762%tdu...@magma.ca...
> The Subaru Factory Team booklet on training* says there are four
> determinants of performance:
>
> 1) Vo2 Max: engine size - how big is the engine;
> 2) Lactate Threshold: rpms - how high can you race the engine;
> 3) Economy: miles per gallon - the amount of oxygen that it takes for an
> individual athlete to go a given speed; and
> 4) Strength: the maximum force that can be produced in one all out effort.
>
> So if I understand this correctly, your cadence depends on your lactate
> threshold - the higher your LT, the higher cadence you can maintain.
>
> Tim
>
> *this is a really good little booklet, available from Skipost.
I agree. Packs a lot of useful info, explained well, into a few pages.
Parham.
Janne G
>
> The Subaru Factory Team booklet on training* says there are four
> determinants of performance:
>
> 1) Vo2 Max: engine size - how big is the engine;
> 2) Lactate Threshold: rpms - how high can you race the engine;
> 3) Economy: miles per gallon - the amount of oxygen that it takes for an
> individual athlete to go a given speed; and
> 4) Strength: the maximum force that can be produced in one all out effort.
>
> So if I understand this correctly, your cadence depends on your lactate
> threshold - the higher your LT, the higher cadence you can maintain.
have an optimum rpm for your body constitution and training degre AND power
output. If we are talking a bout efficiency then the most effective rpm
depends on the power output. Normally the rpm goes up when the power goes up.
Whe should not forgett that using bike pedals whe have a perfect match of
masses on both sides of the crank that outbalances the massmovement losses
that we have in XC skiing. Just to spinn the crank around don't cost much
in terms of energy compared to moving skiis forward and backwards in the same
speed jsut because they are not coupled togheter with the following energy
transfer between the legs (No i don't mean that type of energy between the
legs;-).
--
Forward in all directions
Janne G
Ken Roberts
> With V2 and V1alt, the power comes in the
> weight transfer and the drive from the poles
Actually I think in objective physics, it's the other way around:
Weight transfer comes _from_ leg-push power.
Also in the physics, from an efficiency perspective: Side-to-side weight
transfer is mostly a wasteful expenditure of that leg-power.
> I don't see how we can up-tempo without
> sacrificing something really important like
> follow through and other types of movement.
Follow-through may be a good mental image, but from a physics speed
perspective it's at best a necessary evil. And likely its contribution to
efficiency is at best small.
Follow-through is OK as long as you don't have anything else productive to
do with that leg during that time. From a physics perspective, otherwise
the best thing to do is cut short the follow-through short and immediately
start getting that leg into a position to do something useful again.
> Also, the weight transfer as you mentioned is important for us.
On flat and gentle terrain where there is some gliding to be done, weight
transfer has the benefit of being able to reduce friction, by doing that
gliding on a flat ski with even distribution of pressure over its base. And
it feels good too. But even then there's an energy cost to making the
weight transfer. (Interestingly that cost goes up non-linearly with higher
cadence, so a belief in the importance of weight transfer is a deterrent to
higher cadence.)
Skating up a steep hill, there's little gliding to be done, and the ski
needs to be edged most of the time for propulsion -- so it's difficult to
see why it is worth wasting energy on side-to-side weight transfer to try to
get onto a flatter ski.
Also, going up a hill, the energy cost of "dead spots" (gaps when there is
no pushing) is higher than on the flat. (I suspect that's the main reason
V1 offset is better than Open Field Skate / V2 Alternate going up a steep
hill). And the strain of using muscles and joints in long strokes outside
their good central ranges is higher going up hills.
Skating up a hill, it seems to me virtually all the advantages from physics
point toward higher cadence (and the offset pole timing of V1) -- and toward
minimizing old flat-land habits like weight transfer and follow-through that
block cadence.
Following that reasoning, the main solution to not having enough aerobic
capacity is to shorten the stroke. Or switch to more of a herringbone.
Ken
phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca
assume V1alt was a typo), one of the more recent changes suggested to
me by a coach was to not bring the heels as close together (as I'd
been doing or as in doing V2). The reason for this was exactly what
Brian suggests, namely, to increase the cadence. I remember looking
at some WC women climbing on a tape of the 1997 Trondheim World
Championships and thinking they didn't seem to be shifting their
weight properly, but I'm sure they were. What I saw was the aspect
of technique above, which I think is a change from, say, 1992. I'd
be interested in comments on this.
Best, Peter phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Jeff Potter
less time in follow thru or transfer. Mike Muha posted here recently
that Mich cit racers are using higher tempo V2 more often than they used
to. It would be neat to see someday.
--
Jeff Potter j...@outyourbackdoor.com
http://OutYourBackdoor.com ... a friendly ezine of modern folkways and
culture revival ... offering a line of alternative books ... a world of
bikes, boats, skis ... find great sleeper media in the bookstore,
videoshop and musicstore ... "Local Spirit" services include nationwide
"Off the Beaten Path" travel tip forums, bumperstickers and a cool new
social magnet sticker game! ...Holy Smokes!!!
Kenneth Salzberg
> Brian suggests, namely, to increase the cadence. I remember looking
> at some WC women climbing on a tape of the 1997 Trondheim World
> Championships and thinking they didn't seem to be shifting their
> weight properly, but I'm sure they were. What I saw was the aspect
> of technique above, which I think is a change from, say, 1992. I'd
> be interested in comments on this.
Peter:
I remember analysing video of steep V-1 in a world cup race with coaches
at a clinic. While the heels were not coming together (no time to get
them back there) as much, if you checked the torso in relation to the
legs, there was still a good deal of weight shift going on. In effect the
legs weren't being brought under the torso, but the torso was still moving
from side to side (in relation to the legs, that is).
-Ken S.
***********************************************************
Kenneth Salzberg ksal...@gw.hamline.edu
Hamline University ksal...@piper.hamline.edu
School of Law (651) 523-2354
1536 Hewitt Ave.
Sisu Skier - Team Birke St. Paul, MN 55104
******************************************************************
Jeff Potter
fall show and discuss the same thing. --All New Skate stuff. So, to what
extent aren't we repeating ourselves here?
Kenneth Salzberg wrote:
> Peter:
> I remember analysing video of steep V-1 in a world cup race with coaches
> at a clinic. While the heels were not coming together (no time to get
> them back there) as much, if you checked the torso in relation to the
> legs, there was still a good deal of weight shift going on. In effect the
> legs weren't being brought under the torso, but the torso was still moving
> from side to side (in relation to the legs, that is).
--
Ken Roberts
movement of the center-of-mass. Because some of that is inherent in the
fact that skating by definition includes moving out at an angle from a
straight path.
The concept that makes sense to me is to keep all the side-to-side that is
an inherent "side-effect" of forward-motion component of the pushes, but to
eliminate the "weight transfer for weight transfer's sake".
Even the part that is an inherent side-effect has a significant cost: Real
extra _work_ must be included in the leg-push to decelerate and stop the
motion component toward one side, and also to start and accelerate the
skier's mass back toward the other side. That's a required inefficiency of
skating technique (one not shared by bicycling). The point is not to take
on any _extra_ in the hills. Save the cute inefficiencies for the flats.
Ken R
________________________________
Ken Salzberg wrote
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:3CC56C67...@glpbooks.com...
> Mrs. Anikin's uphill V1 analysis video sequences from Trax or XC
Skier last
> fall show and discuss the same thing. --All New Skate stuff. So, to
what
> extent aren't we repeating ourselves here?
I think this is repetive. But I'm not sure it's "new skate." In
world cup video from the early 1990s the skiers don't bring their legs
together on the steep stuff -- it would slow tempo down to way, way to
slow.
Sly D. Skeez
> During last year's Tour de France, Lance Armstrong used a different
One thing to remember is that with skiing, the recovery is wasted
motion. I.e. you kick, and to get back to the position of kicking
again doesn't make you go forward, although some people will argue
that the arm recovery produces some forward momentum. Yeah, maybe, but
it's diddley squat. Anyway, when Lance revs up the rpm, all the motion
is useful, it's just certain portions of the pedal stroke are more
"useful."
I remember reading that elite skiers had the same frequence/turnover
as the Olympic/WC champs, but they didn't go as far during each
stroke. That says to me that I should be trying to get more out of
each stroke rather than trying to increase the turnover.
Off course there's exceptions. When the skis stop gliding, it's
probably better to turn up the turnover. If you're cramping near the
end of races, it's probably better to get less out of each stroke and
go for a higher turnover.
Jay (diddley) Wenner
Ken Roberts
> I remember reading that elite skiers had the
> champs, but they didn't go as far during each
> stroke. That says to me that I should be trying
> to get more out of each stroke rather than
> trying to increase the turnover.
I'll bet that is indeed what _you_ should do.
To me the message of Lance Armstrong on a bicycle is not "everybody should
use a higher cadence than they are now". It is rather:
I should play around with and test a wide range of force/velocity trade-offs
and rigorously _measure_ what actually works best for _me_: on the flats,
on gentle hills, on steep hills.
To which I would add:
- - don't let my "range of play and test" be constrained by outmoded ideas
of "weight transfer for weight transfer's sake", "glide for glide's sake",
and "follow-through for follow-through's sake".
- - there's other ways to play with force/velocity in skating than just the
cadence number.
Skiers _could_ draw some other lessons from elite bicycle racing:
- - eliminate unpowered glide segments from the stroke cycle, especially on
uphills
- - minimize and smooth out "explosive" force peaks in the stroke
- - limit muscles and joints to their strongest most efficient motion
ranges. Cut off the "follow-through".
- - minimize side-to-side weight transfer.
- - minimize side-to-side twisting or rotation.
- - "fill in" all dead spots in the stroke cycle.
- - put some force sensors into the key power-transfer points (especially
the binding) and find out what's _objectively_physically_ happening in each
sub-phase of the stroke (beyond the mental images and perceptual illusions).
__________________________________________
> with skiing, the recovery is wasted motion.
Agree. Lance has some similar inefficiency, in that he must accelerate and
decelerate the mass of his lower legs and shoes back and forth and up and
down. But Yes, it's larger for ski skaters.
How is that inefficiency of recovery impacted by increasing my cadence?
My answer: It depends on how.
If I increase cadence by uniformly speeding up every motion in my stroke
cycle, then the velocities (and accelerations/decelerations) of my recovery
moves are larger, so the forces get larger and the percent inefficiency of
recovery grows non-linearly.
But if I increase my cadence by eliminating dead spots and unnecessary
motions, but keep the same velocities for my recovery moves, then the story
is better. And if I cut off some follow-through on the primary motion,
seems to me I might actually _reduce_ the inefficiency cost of recovery.
Ken
Gene Goldenfeld
weight shift. Makes sense that a shortened return will truncate
torso motion, but I haven't studied others on this to state that
generally.
Gene
"Sly D. Skeez" wrote:
>
>...although some people will argue
Brian
question (or at least I think I have).
To achieve the 'optimal' balance between power, weight transfer,
cadence and speed, I've determined that only two techniques should be
used. (This shouldn't be a relevation to anyone, but I think it
clarifies my cadence question.)
On flat sections, there is not better technique than a powerful
open-field skate/V2alt. Use strong poling and weight transfer to
drive forward, but the key to V2alt is stong forward-pushing legs. I
pole on my left side, and thus that has to be my power stroke. (Is it
odd that I'm right handed and feel most comfortable driving off my
left?)
On uphills, I've dicovered that V2 is my 'only' choice. The key to
this 'relevation' is the power generated from my poling. Here's my
logic. If you have decent momentum at the foot of the hill, the
initial few feet of the inclide will sap away any momentum gained. By
poling on only one side going up a hill (no matter how fast I transfer
my weight), I lose incredible amounts of momentum and feel extra worn
at the top of the hill (especially in my poling side-leg.) This is
because I have to work extra hard to compensate for the effects of the
hill on my non-poling side.
The answer must be to maintain momentum going up, and V2 is the key
becuase of the more rapid poling. V2 mitigates the effects of the
incline, and transfers the focus of my efforts to my back and arms.
When I posed my original cadence question, I was mostly thinking the
cadence of my legs, but I realised that was the wrong area of focus.
The answer is the poling and increasing its cadence.
In the TDF, Lance shifted down to maintain a higher (or perhaps a
constant) cadence going up the hills. It seemed to work for me when I
'shifted' down on power (ie, less legs), but increased my cadence (ie.
V2 poling). In this way, my cadence is higher - and I go up the hills
faster and seem less tired at the top.
Granted this wasn't a scientific study, but it seems to work for me.
My only evidence of this is in my 10km split times. I had some of the
fastest 10km times yesterday even though there was alot of traffic in
Central Park.
Ken Roberts
> To achieve the 'optimal' balance between
> power, weight transfer, cadence and speed,
> I've determined that only two techniques should be used.
Optimal for what? Lowest power expenditure? Fast speed? 500 meter
sprints? 50 km marathons?
Like John T said, the winners are not necessarily the most efficient.
> On flat sections, there is not better technique
> than a powerful open-field skate/V2alt.
My observation at Soldier Hollow was that the elite racers used very little
open field skate (Canadian "2-skate", single-dance) and lots and lots of V2
(Canadian 1-skate, "Wallberg", double-dance).
My guess is that V2 is "better" for them because they've got incredibly
strong arms and abs for poling, and fantastic balance.
> On uphills, I've dicovered that V2 is my 'only' choice.
My observation from the elite skaters at Soldier Hollow is that when the
hills got steep, they switched to V1 (Canadian "offset").
> When I posed my original cadence question,
> I was mostly thinking the cadence of my legs,
> but I realised that was the wrong area of focus.
> The answer is the poling and increasing its cadence.
There's a third alternative for steeper uphills:
Use what produces the best continuity of force from _both_ leg-pushes and
arm-pushes.
One advantage of V1 / offset is that by timing the pole-push to be _offset_
from either of the leg-pushes, you get a "3-beat" rhythm -- instead of the
"2-beat" rhythm of either V2 or open field skate. Therefore if you keep up
the same leg cadence, you get a smaller "low spot" (or even "dead spot")
between the two leg pushes -- by "filling in the gap" with the strong arms
and abs muscles.
Ken
P.S. - For some reason, I found it hard to learn this offset V1 pole timing
on rollerskis. And most people find effective V2 technique even more
difficult to learn.
Brian
> sprints? 50 km marathons?
>
> Like John T said, the winners are not necessarily the most efficient.
I measure myself on roller-skiing 10km splits and how winded I feel
after I finish. Normally I roller-ski 30kms, and measure my 10km
splits. I become progressively faster on each 10km split. Thus, my
third 10km split is faster than my second, and my second is faster
than my first. Somehow I must be using energy efficiently to become
progressively faster. The more efficient I use my body's energy, the
faster I go, hence my use of the word optimal.
I agree with John T, but in Central Park there are so few
roller-skiers that my non-scientific studies are my only basis from
which to measure.
> My observation at Soldier Hollow was that the elite racers used very little
> open field skate (Canadian "2-skate", single-dance) and lots and lots of V2
> (Canadian 1-skate, "Wallberg", double-dance).
> My guess is that V2 is "better" for them because they've got incredibly
> strong arms and abs for poling, and fantastic balance.
> My observation from the elite skaters at Soldier Hollow is that when the
> hills got steep, they switched to V1 (Canadian "offset").
>
I noticed that too. I'm not yet able to match World Cup/Olympic
skiers, but I'm working on it. :-)
> There's a third alternative for steeper uphills:
> Use what produces the best continuity of force from _both_ leg-pushes and
> arm-pushes.
Which for me may be V2.
> One advantage of V1 / offset is that by timing the pole-push to be _offset_
> from either of the leg-pushes, you get a "3-beat" rhythm -- instead of the
> "2-beat" rhythm of either V2 or open field skate. Therefore if you keep up
> the same leg cadence, you get a smaller "low spot" (or even "dead spot")
> between the two leg pushes -- by "filling in the gap" with the strong arms
> and abs muscles.
Interesting point. I'll try it next time I'm out.
>
> P.S. - For some reason, I found it hard to learn this offset V1 pole timing
> on rollerskis. And most people find effective V2 technique even more
> difficult to learn.
V2 is certainly the most dangerous!
John Forrest Tomlinson
meter
> > sprints? 50 km marathons?
> >
> > Like John T said, the winners are not necessarily the most
efficient.
>
> I measure myself on roller-skiing 10km splits and how winded I feel
> after I finish. Normally I roller-ski 30kms, and measure my 10km
> splits. I become progressively faster on each 10km split. Thus, my
> third 10km split is faster than my second, and my second is faster
> than my first. Somehow I must be using energy efficiently to become
> progressively faster.
Not necessarily. You might be producing more power later in your
workout, not using the same amount of power more efficiently. If you
are less "winded" later in the workout, they yeah, you're probably
going more efficiently. But if you're just going faster it's not
clear.
jim farrell
>
>
>Ken
>
>P.S. - For some reason, I found it hard to learn this offset V1 pole timing
>on rollerskis.
>
On rollers, you can quickly accelerate past the effective poling speed
for V1. There is always the issue of not committing your full weight to
the poles that close to the asphalt . . .
> And most people find effective V2 technique even more
>difficult to learn.
>
Balance is the key here. My coaches have been doing a lot of work with
us recently on this. Try a lot of no poles skate. Work on balance.
Swing your arms dynamically for balance, first diagonally, later with a
V2 timing. Get comfortable with glide and weight transfer. We did
hours of parking lot circles with the coaches skating up reminding us of
positional changes or arm swing issues. Then try a deeper knee bend,
longer stroke. Feel the position while just standing with your kicking
leg straight out, slightly behind and your glide leg with a deep knee
bend. Check that the kick leg is a straight line extension of your
torso and that your glide ankle is under you center of gravity with a
steep ankle bend. It really helps to see a skilled skier demonstrate
the smooth dynamic efficiency you are striving for. Then try to skate
no poles heading towards this position. You will tire very quickly
using new muscles rather than so much bone to hold your weight, but you
should be getting a very long kick and be trying to ride the glide as
long as possible. When you can transfer the weight to glide a long time
on one ski, you will have the balance for V2. We then spent a lot of
time working on a smooth, relaxed recovery of the leg just after the
kick, which is a whole 'nother issue.
Then of course, you will have to eventually learn the more aggressive,
accelerating, higher tempo/ climbing V2 . . .
Jim Farrell
>
>
>
>
Kenneth Salzberg
. . .
> One advantage of V1 / offset is that by timing the pole-push to be _offset_
> from either of the leg-pushes, you get a "3-beat" rhythm -- instead of the
> "2-beat" rhythm of either V2 or open field skate. Therefore if you keep up
> the same leg cadence, you get a smaller "low spot" (or even "dead spot")
> between the two leg pushes -- by "filling in the gap" with the strong arms
> and abs muscles.
While the force application in V-1 has three "humps," the timeing is a two
beat one (beats, in my coaching, dealing with the setting down of each
extremity). In a V1, you put the "strong" leg and poles down together,
begin the pole push, then ski off that leg onto the other (second beat),
then push with the other leg. V2 has a 4 beat rhythm: ski, poles on that
side, other ski, then poles on other side. V2Alt has, thus, a 3-beat
rhythm: ski, pole on that side, other ski.
Ken Roberts
Jim Farrell wrote
> [about V2 technique] Balance is the key here . . . etc.
Since it was Nathan who first pointed it out, and it was such a wonderful
breakthrough for me, I almost want to call my V2 "Schultz", instead of
"Wallberg". And once I took Nathan's approach (a lot like yours) I had no
trouble learning it on rollerskis.
Friday evening was my second time on rollerskis in months. I spent the
first hour just skating easy no-poles with Sharon, exploring a new route
made possible by opening a new foot-bridge over the Rahway River. I did
some pure double-poling for 15-30 minutes. Then almost without conscious
thought I found myself doing skating V2. Ever since that day of balance
work last autumn on rollerskis, V2 is just my natural way to skate, whether
on snow or pavement.
But offset V1 just didn't click for me until I got on snow and got some
helpful coaching at Silver Star.
Ken
phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca
can affect that a lot), and often they are at least as fast as the fastest
snow, I think that to learn which technique to use when in a race, you
simply need to spend a large amount of time trying to ski fast on snow,
in lots of different snow conditions, and using all three basic techniques.
Then you just develop a feel for which 'gear' to be in, and I don't
think that can be communicated too easily in words.
We had a little thread about the following last year: the one place where
I feel least confident of this is a moderately pitched longish hill,
where deciding between offset-V1 and 1-skate-V2 I found by doing a
controlled test that the V1 was not as much slower than the V2 as
I thought. So this winter I began switching down to V1 a bit sooner,
and back up to V2 a bit later near the top.
But switching back and
forth between V2 and 2-skate-open field-V2-alt usually seems pretty
obvious. The hardest decision is how soon to go bananas right near
the end and do a V2 sprint, in a time-trial format or a close finish.
Best, Peter phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Jay Tegeder
Olympoic 15K. Okay, ask Juha Mieto. Retired too early in his early
thirties. Reportedly didn't get along too well with Gunde Svan.
Regardless, with Svan and Torgny Mogren, Wassberg was part of one of
the greatest ski teams of all-time. Jan Ottosson (four time Vasaloppet
Champion) got a gold in the '88 Relay thanks to those guys. Mogren was
"the" skating model before Thomas Alsgaard came along. I didn't
realize the Swedes called the V-2, the "Wassberg" skate. If true, I'm
sure Nathan would defer to Wassberg. However, Nathan probably
incorporates some of the "new skate" refinements.
Jay Tegeder
"On the podium if the right people don't show up!" JT
"Ken Roberts" <KenRob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MFez8.56940$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Hank Garretson
>The hardest decision is how soon to go bananas right near
>the end and do a V2 sprint, in a time-trial format or a close finish.
Bjorn Lasserlud: Start out as fast as you can, then turn the throttle up.
Ski Joyfully,
Hank
Lancaster, Calif.