- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
coapman said:
Jim carries out research so I would rather read his work than listen to what you think the visions in your head are saying to you.
Jim carries out research so I would rather read his work than listen to what you think the visions in your head are saying to you.
The rest of the world doesn't have to prove me wrong. Even if it were possible (which I think it is not), proving marketing claims wrong or that a product is dangerous doesn't necessarily solve the problem, just look at cigarettes. I simply try to address the individual users skepticism by offering a 90 day money-back guarantee. Try and get that from a PM or wheel or frame manufacturer. I consider that better than any study. What good is a positive study if the product doesn't work for you?Martin318is said:Nice reply - not patronising at all!
Couple of things:
Firstly, I hold a BSc. in Aquatic Biology (research) and yes, I DO know how scientific theory works.
I also know the difference between scientific evidence and marketing.
and I agree that you are making a massive marketing claim and attempting to say that it is up to the rest of the world to prove it wrong.
Regarding the PowerBalance band, I will pass. One difference between the PB band and the PC's is the PBband offers immediate improvement. PC's however, cause an immediate worsening of performance in almost everyone. This worsening lasts anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months for most people. Any improvement that people see after that, I would submit, can hardly be attributed to placebo effect. So, that 40% improvement we offer generally only comes after we make people substantially worse and they have to work through it. Not many companies make that claim.Can I interest you in a powerbalance band? All the top athletes use them and a simple test shows that they immediately improve your balance and proprioreception.
The problem with your approach to a study is the cost and the fact my experience with researchers is they hardly ever do what they say they will do. My little company simply doesn't have the resources and there is no guarantee it would get published. Without getting published it is pretty much worthless even if the results were phenomenol (maybe especially if they were phenomenol). So, we are stuck with what we have, marginally better than anecdotal if one is looking for proof.
Sorry to be so serious but I don't pick these battles. Others start them.
If you go back and look at my very first post on this thread (#11) I made no mention of my product. I simply made the remark that I thought the evidence supported an even application of work done by the muscles around the circle was the best technique and I referenced a study that addressed the issue, at least in part. If others had not brought up PowerCranks the OP probably would not have had a clue that I had a product to offer in this area.
I would have no problem addressing these issues without mentioning my product except that others keep bringing it up. They apparently do so because they don't have good rebuttals to my points based on the science so they have to attack me personally. The problem is, if I were not here, the person who originally asked the question would only be getting 2/3 of the picture (we can't forget Neal, who has a different view than everyone). The internet is the place for a full discussion of the issues. I am sorry you have to be innundated with the PowerCranks crap.
Hey, I simply tell people what I think the product will do for them if they follow the directions. What boggles the mind is all the cyclists here who would be willing to pass on such improvements simply because they don't think it is possible rather than saying, "you know, I don't think this is possible but let me give them a try myself to prove it in case this guy is right. I'll give them a week or two and see what's up and if I can't get my money back when these don't work I'll see his *** in jail."
If you prefer Fergies argumentative style, so be it.I can see that you are going to just keep on swinging with the same arguments and that you are not going to see the inherent flaws in your argumentative style - so have fun.
Anyhow, I happen to believe that pedaling technique makes a big difference to performance. This is based upon my experience and the experience of others but I cannot prove this. Now, I just happen to make a product that addresses that issue but the fact that I make a product does not change the science of this issue. You can choose to believe me or not. You can choose to refuse to buy my product if you wish. But, when someone comes here and asks a question about pedaling technique it seems to my that my experience and beliefs can be relevant to that discussion because I have done a lot of thinking about it.
Cyclists either believe that pedaling technique makes a difference or they don't (or they don't know - which is why threads like this get started). There are passionate people on all sides which is why these debates tend to be so lively.
If you do believe it makes a difference then you have to decide which technique you think is best (and how to best train that technique) and perhaps a discussion such as this might help you decide.
If you don't believe it makes a difference you should state your position and give your reasons why (rather than attacking the other side) in discussions like this. After all, the purpose should be to help the OP answer his own question by giving useful information.
If you don't know then perhaps a discussion like this might help you to decide or it might just confuse you more. But, at least, you are thinking about the subject.
If your mind is made up you are pretty much one of the people posting, no doubt.
Anyhow, sorry for the downer post.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
FrankDay said:
Will let you know when I see a rider with a pedalling issue.
Asplund, C., & St Pierre, P. (2004). Knee pain and bicycling: Fitting concepts for Clinicians. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 32, 23-30.
Bailey, M.P., Mailardet, F.J., & Messenger, N. (2003). Kinematics of cycling in relation to anterior knee pain and patella tendinitis. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 649-657.
Dannenberg, A.L., Needle, S., Mullady, D., & Kolodner, K.B. (1996). Predictors of injury among 1638 riders in a recreational long-distance bicycle tour: Cycle Across Maryland. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, 747-753.
Dettori, N.J., & Norvell, D.C. (2006). Non-traumatic bicycle injuries: A review of the literature. Sports Medicine, 36, 7-18.
Ericson, M.O., & Nissel, R. (1987). Patellofemoral joint forces during ergometric cycling. Physical Therapy, 67, 1365-1369.
Holmes, J.C., Pruit, A.L., & Whalen, N.J. (1994). Lower extremity overuse in bicycling. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 13, 187-205.
Mellion, M.B. (1991). Common cycling injuries: Management and prevention. Sports Medicine, 11, 52-70
Peveler, W.W., Bishop, P., Smith, J., Richardson, M., & Whitehorn, E. (2005). Comparing methods for setting saddle height in trained cyclists. Journal of Exercise Physiology online, 8, 51-55.
Peveler, W.W., Pounders, J.D., & Bishop, P.A. (2007). Effects of saddle height on anaerobic power production in cycling. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21, 1023-1027.
Powel, B. (1986). Medical aspects of racing. In E.R. Burke (Ed.), Science of Cycling (pp. 185-201). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sanderson, D.J., & Amoroso, A.T. (2009). The influence of seat height on the mechanical function of the triceps surae muscles during steady-rate cycling. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19, e465-e471.
Tamborindeguy, A.C., & Rico Bini, R. (2009). Does saddle height affect patellofemoral and tibiofemoral forces during bicycling for rehabilitation? Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies, doi: 10.1016/j.jbrnt.2009.07.009
de Vey Mestdagh, K. (1998). Personal perspective: in search of an optimum cycling posture. Applied Ergonomics, 29, 325-334.
Wilber, C.A., Holland, G.J., Madison, R.E., & Hoy, S.F. (1995). An epidemiological analysis of overuse injuries among recreational cyclists. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16, 201-206.
For performance it would appear that 109% of leg length and for injury prevention purposes a 25degree bend in the knee but to be honest the research behind these measures is pretty shaky. I prefer to set a rider up on a trainer simply putting the seat up till the rider starts rocking and lowering it down till the rocking stops. Then we go out on the road and I observe them riding uphill under load or on the track using the moto to get them up to speed so I can again see the position under specific loading.
Cadence depends on the rider and the event they are in. As mentioned a single speed rider runs cadences from as low as 20rpm up to 140rpm but most road events run in certain cadence zones and track tend to run at higher levels as that muppet you "claimed" was going to have a go at the hour record on the track at 60rpm found doesn't work all that well in practice.
TBH I think that 25degree knee bend was plucked out of thin air. It appeared in one of Pruitt's articles and has become Gospel from there. More of that repeat the lie stuff I guess hence I don't just settle for video analysis in the lab to set up bikes unless lab based tests are the main goal.
I think we have thrashed that sucka out pretty well and the conclusion is that a set cadence is a red herring. Bit like cranks lengths. No meaningful differences till you go stupid long or stupid short. Same for cadence. I tell my trackies that within reason gears on the track is a crapshoot and if they go too big then roll that sucka and if to small then pedal faster.
The issue for us in Christchurch is that our track is outdoors and rather slow so when we head down to Invercargill indoor board track it's not a simple matter of increasing the gear to maintain the cadence (especially for juniors on gear restrictions) otherwise the riders would never get the bike started so they tend to ride at a higher cadence.
No worries Frank any time I can clear up your many misconceptions only too happy to help. Un-muddy those waters and reverse the lie so to speak
I find it hard to believe that Biopace actually caused any knee problems. Here is why. One of my "beta" testers for the PowerCranks had Biopace chainrings on his bike that he had forgotten all about. The assymmetry of those rings was so small he had no idea and could feel nothing funny even though the orientation of the rings had to be all over the place. I once asked him how big his big ring was and he didn't know so I went to look and that was when we discovered he had a biopace ring. My guess is if you blindfolded people less than 1% would be able to tell with any accuracy whether the rings on the bike were Biopace or round.Martin318is said:
There is simply a natural tendency of people to attribute injuries (or improvements, or almost anything else) to what is different because that is the easiest culprit to blame or credit. The Biopace assymmetry was so small it is hard for me to imagine it causing any difficulty from a biomechanical perspective.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 3,035
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Gotta give you massive credit for your 90day money back return in light of this statement. What you are effectively saying then is that 99.8% (if I read your other post correctly?) of purchasers get through that 2 month period and still use the device enough in the remaining 30days that they get such a big positive experience out of it that it over-rides the initial 60 days discomfort, etc.
Now THAT is more interesting (and less contentious) than repeatedly mentioning a 40% gain. For me the problem is around this mythical 40% - for starters it needs to be over and above normal training improvements and it clearly needs to be in athletes that are not professionals (can you really expect Cancellara to improve 40% in a year using your cranks? What would races look like with him in them then?
)
- Mar 18, 2009
- 14,644
- 81
- 22,580
FrankDay said:
I know how you feel, bro. I once invented a perpetual motion machine. I sold it with a 90 day money back guarantee. The machine actually consumed more power for the first three or four months it was switched on, which was conveniently after the 90 day period, but after that it produced power. It worked I tell you. It worked!
It boggled my mind that people were willing to pass on such an invention simply because they did not think it was possible. I spent years pimping it on web forums. I engaged in endless arguments with physicists, scientists, and even psychologists. I refused to acknowledge basic science. I even doubted the laws of the universe. I was so argumentative that most of my opponents threw their hands up with disgust and stopped responding to me. People called me a loon. They called me a charlatan. But I outlasted them all, winning the debate by being the last lonely man babbling to myself in pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that no one else could comprehend. Still no one bought my invention. It was a soul crushing defeat. Finally I moved to a one room shack in the Dakotas. The toilet is a bucket in one corner. I scribble my manifesto at night by candle light. One day you will all pay. You will all pay!
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
FrankDay said:
It's that you hold us plebs in such contempt and feel it is okay to lie to us frequently on so many different levels.
Well sort of does really. When the little boy gets cancer I would like to think the medical community will get behind him to resolve the issue. If some 50 year old habitual smoker gets cancer my line would be: "we're obligated to treat you dude did you think all those studies and anti smoking campaigns were just for s**ts and giggles. Think about that as we cut your throat out."
The manufacturer can at least stand behind their claims. A 90 day guarantee means nothing.
We can all make claims Frank. I can claim my dog can fly but until I can provide evidence that he is close to his pilots licence then it is just another unsubstantiated claim.
No Frank you choose to lie to us so get play the victim when others call BS!
Well Frank you do have 11 years of lying on the Internet. That amount of baggage comes with a cost. The best evidence that you are wrong is the numerous studies on Gimmickcrank use that show that changing to an even application around the pedal stroke, not that Gimmickcranks actually do this (Bohm 2008).
That's because you are a born performance artist. You are the only one who takes issue with the science and all your claims about the length of the studies have been addressed rather well. I personally don't care what you think but will stand up for the good work that has been done in the area.
The peer review press is the proper environment for a scientific discussion. The Internet is a place for people to make unsubstantiated claims.
A money back guarantee is evidence of nothing. It's like the $100 rebates they offer with new laptops. The marketers know that people hate the hassle and just accept they got things wrong. Very rare that they complain in public forums because then they look dumb because they got stung in the first place.
When I started Grad School we were challenged to make an argument, challenge what was out there, do things better and critique the published work so far. The volume and complexity of your deceit makes an awesome case study.
Yet can provide zero evidence.
No you can't so resort to repeating the lie to try and break our resistance down.
And the score is GC 0 NC several good studies showing no benefit and a few average ones showing no performance benefit.
Even though they are just as wildly speculative as Noel.
It's a fair question to ask but unfair to promote a perspective that has no scientific evidence to support it.
You have been given plenty of real evidence against your claims but continue to bury your head in the sand.
Thanks for the relative resonableness of all your answers. Thanks for acknowledging that there isn't much to back up what you do in most of these instances, it is more art than science. But, the above answer bothers me in view of many of your previous posts on other topics.CoachFergie said:
You were the one who talked about too fast or too slow cadence and I asked you how you determined that. I am surprised you didn't talk about using the PM to help you. It would appear you don't care as long as it seemed "reasonable". Now this is a place where I would use the PM. I would have the riders change gears and ride at their race speed or power and look at the effect on efficiency, as judged by their HR at that power. I think then you would have an idea if the rider really was too fast or too slow or within a sweet range. Once I knew the sweet range of gearing for their target power then, if they were in an event like the pursuit where initial acceleration was important to overall success, I would have them choose the smallest gears they could that kept them in the sweet spot efficiency wise but still allowed them the best acceleration at the start.
Maybe I feel like this because I feel cadence impacts on efficiency (regardless of the technique one is using) and I feel efficiency is important, especially in the endurance events. But you have stated in the past you don't believe efficiency to be important to cycling nor that cadence effects efficiency. Anyhow, I would think this something important to determine in track racers and I am surprised you don't do more.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
FrankDay said:
But the difference is I don't claim a lot of what I do as a coach as science and in cases where the science is weak or non existent I am straight up about it.
I do use cadence meters and power meters to help record whether a rider is in an appropriate gear in terms of cadence, or when gearing is restricted to explain for instance it takes a cadence of 139 rpm to break the NZ U17 boys 2000m record.
I also used the power and cadence data for a female sprinter to illustrate that the gearing I had her on (lower) was appropriate and delivered the better power relative to each event.
Overkill. The power tells me what I need to know.
That is actually pretty close to how I operate. I wouldn't use HR as a measure unless I had several major high pressure events to compare as race day tends to elevate stress levels and this is where you find out which riders were prepared for every demand on race day.
Before Junior Worlds last year our Teams Pursuit were very comfortable around 4:08-4:09 pace but on race day went 4:11. Notable that no one in the team had ridden an International Teams Pursuit before, my guy in the team had only been riding track for six months, and this level of competition was new to them all.
Because power data gives me the information I need and because no one has provided the optimal cadence it's a simple matter of trial and error and not panicking if you get it wrong. I am amused that the NZ U19 coach has already stated that in the Teams Pursuit in Moscow they will ride 100in gears at 129 rpm for a time of 4:08 several months out from the event. The NZ team won in 2005 on 93in gears and the Aussies won last year in Italy on 93in gear pedalling at over 135rpm. The NZ elite team (top four last several years) all ride different gears and at last years Oceania Games in the U19 team's pursuit two riders were on 98in and two were on 94in in the final and they went 7 sec faster than qualifying.
It's that art of coaching when it comes to cadence and yes I do prefer as small a gear to maintain optimal gear to allow them to get to pursuit pace faster than the guy on the other side of the track, what the other guy try and wind the bigger gear out, cook themselves in the first Kilo then watch them implode while my rider churns out metronome like laps.
CoachFergie said:
Life would be much easier for both of us Fergie if you would just answer the questions trying to be helpful instead of lecturing and brow beating. Anyhow, I just like to point out that what you determined above is the necessary speed, not power, to break a record. If one is trying to break a record the main concern is one of speed, not power.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
FrankDay said:
Well time actually. There are no brownie points for excessive speed as I illustrated.
That's another difference; my numbers are real, not some wild arsed guess that you think fits with your marketing strategy.
oldborn
BANNED
- May 14, 2010
- 1,115
- 0
- 0
Tapeworm said:
I read it 5 times and finally understand what are you trying to say
You mean late Aldo
I am not against science and coaches at all Dude, i was just pointing out the reason of Heretic hunting of some "scientific" circles against PC (that is strange), well you must admit where is a smoke there should be a fire (i hope it is correct)
Respect of Aussies cycling, i wish we have success to.
Again, cycling science is still to be discovered and many books and theories are just that. Many coaches are working on trial and errors methods, many of them change their way, many of them would never change their way, tell me is there wright way? 50 coaches 50 methods of training.
One likes higher cadence, one likes 30 RPM uphill cadence, one likes sweet spot, one likes "ride 130 wats for 4 hours" method, one like more races before main one, one like 5x15 min treshold one like 6x12 min treshold etc. It is not rocket science.
Stay well!
CoachFergie said:
One correction, Anq. won 5 Tours not 7. So Jim carries out research, but where can data be found that confirms this research improved pedalling technique. Jim's research is probably funded, would he be carrying out the same research without the funding? If you are so confident that my claim is false, how about this round £2000 stg. bet on what this new force/vector PM reveals as regards the possibility of applying peak torque around 1 o'c instead of 3 o'c while in the natural racing body position on the drops. It's a straight yes/no answer. With this peak high gear torque being applied by the much stronger glutes and lower legs/ankles instead of the thighs and knees and pedalling resistance plus all upper bodyweight support supplied by the arms, the root causes of cycling's most common injuries (knee and lower back) are eliminated. Frank when a fully fit rider uses powercranks exclusively for the recommended period, where will the promised power increase appear on the graph of this new PM when before and after graphs are compared.
My expectation is most of the power increase will occur across the top and the bottom quadrants of the circle.coapman said:
Edit: let me add an actual graph of tangential pedal forces done comparing the pedal forces of one rider at the same power (250W) when riding on PC's and regular cranks.
As you can see, while there are some changes in the back quadrant (between 225º-315º) the big increases in force occur at the top and the bottom quadrants (315º-045º and 135º-225º). Because the rider is comparing at the same power, he must compensate for the increases in these areas with a big drop in force in the front quadrant. All he has to do is push just as hard as he did before and you can estimate the power increase he might see from this simple technique change. One more thing. This rider was already somewhat PC trained so I suspect the differences we see here are not as great as if we had done that regular crank testing when he was a PC virgin. What we see is what he reverted back to when going back to regular cranks.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
coapman said:
Thats just stupid. Of course you can apply power through that range of people with above the knee amputation, Gimmickcranks or those who perform single leg cycling couldn't ride a bike. EMG studies show this happens.
The question isn't whether you can pedal that way it's whether it will help you to perform better.
Frank made up graphs are not evidence.
I am glad to see you now agree this is a question that has yet to be answered definitively.CoachFergie said:
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
I am on the road taking a group of juniors to a stage race so don't have full web access. There is a link to the Coyle 1991 paper a few pages back. Was showing the riders the course and we hit a frigging cow in the truck.
In my read-through of the Coyle paper, it seems that the pedaling style of all the participants was about the same.
The main difference is that the faster riders are able to produce more down-stroke force on the pedals during a long duration test.
from the conclusion of the article -
"In summary, we have observed in competitive cyclists
that 40 km time-trial performance is closely related to
absolute power during a 1 h laboratory performance
test (r = -0.88; P < 0.001). In turn, 1 h power output
is highly related to the cyclist's VO2 at LT (r = 0.93; P
< 0.001). Although the "elite-national class" cyclists
(group 1) were not different from the "good-state class"
cyclists (group 2) regarding VO2max or lean body weight,
group 1 was able to generate 11% more power during
the 1 h performance test than group 2 (P < 0.05), and
they maintained a 10% higher bicycling velocity for 40
km (P < 0.05). The higher power output was produced
primarily by generating higher peak vertical forces and
torque during the cycling downstroke and not by increasing
the effectiveness of force application to the
pedal. Factors possibly contributing to this ability may
be the higher percentage of Type I fibers (P < 0.05) and
a 23% higher (P < 0.05) muscle capillary density in
group 1 compared with group 2. Additionally, we have
also observed a strong relationship between years of
endurance training and percent Type I muscle fibers (r
=0.75; P< 0.001). It appears that "elite-national class"
cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke
power", possibly as a result of adaptations stimulated
by their greater number of years of endurance training."
In some additional reading that I have done, it seems that a major factor is having one's Lactate Threshold occur at a high percentage of VO2max.
And that is achieved through proper training.
Having only a high VO2max is not sufficient, because a low LT will not allow good usage of a high VO2max.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
The main difference is that the faster riders are able to produce more down-stroke force on the pedals during a long duration test.
from the conclusion of the article -
"In summary, we have observed in competitive cyclists
that 40 km time-trial performance is closely related to
absolute power during a 1 h laboratory performance
test (r = -0.88; P < 0.001). In turn, 1 h power output
is highly related to the cyclist's VO2 at LT (r = 0.93; P
< 0.001). Although the "elite-national class" cyclists
(group 1) were not different from the "good-state class"
cyclists (group 2) regarding VO2max or lean body weight,
group 1 was able to generate 11% more power during
the 1 h performance test than group 2 (P < 0.05), and
they maintained a 10% higher bicycling velocity for 40
km (P < 0.05). The higher power output was produced
primarily by generating higher peak vertical forces and
torque during the cycling downstroke and not by increasing
the effectiveness of force application to the
pedal. Factors possibly contributing to this ability may
be the higher percentage of Type I fibers (P < 0.05) and
a 23% higher (P < 0.05) muscle capillary density in
group 1 compared with group 2. Additionally, we have
also observed a strong relationship between years of
endurance training and percent Type I muscle fibers (r
=0.75; P< 0.001). It appears that "elite-national class"
cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke
power", possibly as a result of adaptations stimulated
by their greater number of years of endurance training."
In some additional reading that I have done, it seems that a major factor is having one's Lactate Threshold occur at a high percentage of VO2max.
And that is achieved through proper training.
Having only a high VO2max is not sufficient, because a low LT will not allow good usage of a high VO2max.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
- Feb 10, 2010
- 10,645
- 20
- 22,510
CoachFergie said:
Are we talking widely and publicly discredited Ed Coyle? That guy is a legitimate reference?
Hat tip to the guy selling Biopace2 rings with a 90-day return. If it works for some, then great. You give them time to find out.
Anecdote: I had biopace rings back in the day. You could definitely feel them. But only when you switched back to round rings.
The problem with this paper (as it relates to drawing pedaling style conclusions) is it took a group of people and grouped them according to time-trial performance and then looked to see if they could see any difference. If all the cyclists pretty much pedal the same, then it stands to reason that the more powerful cyclists will push harder. But, the only conclusion that I can draw from this paper has nothing to do with pedaling style but the 3 year difference in training seemed to result in a better muscle mix, allowing these riders improved efficiency so they could generate more power for the same VO2max. So, Coyle showed years of training matters.JayKosta said:
If you want to look at pedaling style you need to group the athletes according to style (if you could find two large enough groups while controlling for all the other variables, an almost impossible task) and then see if you can see any difference. Or, take a group and change their trained style (documenting the change occurred and what the change was) and see what differences appear compared to a control group that does equivalent training but doesn't change style. Neither of these studies have been done so this question remains.
I wasn't aware Coyle has been widely discredited. There are some who have publicly and loudly been dissatisfied with his Lance data but I don't think that counts as being "widely and publicly discredited" unless there is proof this data (or any of his work) is a fraud.DirtyWorks said:
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
Ed Coyle has never been discredited.
Money back offers are just a gimmick because the majority of unhappy users would rather avoid the hassle than admit they made the mistake in the first place.
Money back offers are just a gimmick because the majority of unhappy users would rather avoid the hassle than admit they made the mistake in the first place.
JayKosta said:
That should read, " The higher power output was produced primarily by generating higher peak vertical forces and torque during the cycling downstroke and not be increasing the efficiency of force application to the pedal. " If not, it does not make sense, he is contradicting himself. It's the old story, mashing v circular.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram