happychappy said:My racing license reads "elite". What does yours say? The very point I was making was that average cyclists CAN compare themselves in terms of "muscular strength". Anyway, I wasn't comparing myself to them in terms of performance, I was giving a reason why larger muscles don't necessarily mean more power in endurance cycling (I'm not talking about sprinting, completely different).
An average cyclist (such as myself) can generate the power of Cancellara's outputs in a TT effort. The difference being the duration Mr. Average can maintain that power - or can't. That proves it isn't a "strength" issue.
I specifically said elite at discipline, because I didn't know your status, but your own admission pretty much indicated you didn't consider yourself an elite TTer. I won't repeat what I said before, which you don't seem to have understood, but maybe my next comment will make the point clearer.
Steroids in road cycling aren't used to gain muscle mass, they're used for faster recovery from aerobic endurance training so that they can go out and do more aerobic endurance training.
Gaining muscle mass in the legs isn't going to make you a faster Time Trialer.
Yes, it will. You are putting out more power in terms of watts. I think you are fixated on endurance, which is basically watts/kg. I’m not saying that isn’t crucial for a TTer, but it isn’t the entire story.
If it were the entire story, you wouldn't see these relatively small riders who are excellent climbers, but not elite TTers. They obviously have elite level endurance, yet they are relatively poor at TTng. Pantani wasn't a great TTer, but his drug-fueled endurance was one of the highest ever. As we have discussed upthread, he recorded some of the fastest climbs, and estimated watts/kg values, in history. Why was he not better at TTing? Because he lacked the muscular strength, which translates into more watts.
red_flanders said:One, Moncoutie, is the outlier in the TT. The other is Froome, who somehow manages to match the times of Armstrong, Virenque, Contador and Schleck...clean.
And RR claimed or implied once that Moncoutie was not clean, though AFAIK he has refused to discuss the subject any further.
Ferminal said:So P*t = AWC + CP*t but somehow P when t = 0 is not equal to AWC? That is exactly how they get the number in their table...
So by dump instantaneously, you mean use all of it. Yes, there is the equation P x t = AEC + CP x t, but as I said before, it breaks down at t close to zero. You can’t “dump” all of your AEC instantaneously. If you could, P would approach infinity as time approached zero.
Science is full of very useful equations that are highly accurate within certain limits, but which break down beyond those limits. Think of Newtonian physics at the quantum level, or all kinds of space-time singularities. It’s quite possible to define some parameter as power at time zero, even if power at time zero does not actually, experimentally equal that parameter. The problem does suggest this is not the ideal equation to use to model power output, but that does not mean that it can’t be very useful within certain limits. Quantum mechanics implies some phenomena that make no sense to us, but it also makes some of the most highly accurate predictions of any scientific theory.
If the results produce numbers that do not make any sense and may even be physiologically impossible then I will haggle over them...
What numbers don’t make any sense? What numbers are physiologically impossible? I mean the numbers he actually published as values in the paper.