carton wrote:StryderHells wrote:[Just because Kelly and Co are touting him as a GC contender in Suisse doesn't mean he is a GC contender
Yep. Sagan is an absolute freak, one of the most talented all-rounders in history. He is still not going to win this TdS.movingtarget wrote:The odd thing about Sastre was that he won the Tour in 2008 and then seemed to fall off the radar. Maybe he lost his motivation and was happy to win one Tour.
Not the thread to re-debate the 2011 TdF but I do think Evans deserved his Tour, he was one of the best stage racers and he raced a good race. I'll will continue to disagree on the "strongest" assessment. YMMV.
In any case, it's funny how narratives go. Evan's best GT results after his win: 3rd, 7th, 8th (no other top-20s). Sastre's best GT results after his win; 2nd, 7th, 8th (3 other top 20s). Don't think either of them "fell off the radar", they just won old and got older. Also, Evans was a better one day racer, and an outspoken English speaker, not two qualities that Sastre shared, which may contribute to the way he is often (scarcely) remembered around these parts.
jsem94 wrote:If it were beneficial, why is no one doing it then? Sorry if this has been supposedly answered about a dozen times already....
CheckMyPecs wrote:jsem94 wrote:If it were beneficial, why is no one doing it then? Sorry if this has been supposedly answered about a dozen times already....
A few riders are doing it. Sagan is one of them and he's a total beast.
As to why the majority of the peloton isn't doing it... Well, like in so many other aspects of life, the "we've always done it this way" mindset is a formidable obstacle to adopting new approaches.
If they had bigger muscles they'd have more weight to carry over the mountains. There's a reason guys like Kittel - who have big muscles so they'll be better at doing what's their speciality - are notoriously bad at climbing. It's not because they're fat.
Why are you acting as if the GC contenders not having big muscles is somehow a personal offence towards you? Can't you just... Let It Go?
(And don't make me start singing!)
RedheadDane wrote:If they had bigger muscles they'd have more weight to carry over the mountains.
RedheadDane wrote:Funny... most multi-climb stages I've seen have been won by a lighter rider.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
CheckMyPecs wrote:There are two main factors at play here:
A) as you rightly said, muscles in the upper body means dragging more weight up the climbs (disadvantage)
B) bigger upper-body muscles also clear lactate and other metabolic waste from the bloodstream (advantage)
In short, single-climb stages, factor A prevails and lighter climbers have an advantage. In long, multiple-climb stages which push riders' endurance to the limit, factor B prevails and bulkier climbers have the upper hand.
Mountain stages in Grand Tours tend to be long and contain several climbs, so bulkier climbers win out overall.
SeriousSam wrote:I've never heard of the notion that bigger upper body muscles increase peak aerobic performance in sports where the work is done with your legs, but it makes perfect sense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guestBack to top