• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 462 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
gillan1969 said:
exactly...we know what happens when you're doing pro miles with a VO2 in the mid 90s...you can rip it up at will...as Lemond did pre-shooting...in fact he was ripping apart seniors as a junior

Froome on the other hand...............5 years of mediocrity

Per the bolded, those not following the sport around the time of Lemond's career would not remember the cycling press generally mystified why, after recovery, Lemond was not back to his race-making ways.

It was others taking EPO, not some mysterious shooting-related condition. Which, should be a clue how powerful and revolutionary oxygen vector doping really is. There's before and after EPO. Two entirely different speeds.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
It was others taking EPO, not some mysterious shooting-related condition.

Greg certainly was clean. There were certainly crazy Epo transforamtions. But what you state here only works if

a. Andy Hampsten was even a bigger talent by a large margin
b. Andy Hampsten was also using Epo

Considering Hampsten is probably another clean rider and he probably wasn;t a bigger talent than Lemond, most likely Lemond did fade a bit overall.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
They have won the last 2 TdFs. They should've won the 2011 Vuelta. Hmmm, no doping agenda. Point to the last clean winner of the TdF?

Froome, pretty much solo 2013, and doing the work of 2 riders in 2011. If you call Wiggo's 2012 snoozy MTT work a dominant GT display, I humbly suggest you need to watch more racing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Ventoux Boar said:
Froome, pretty much solo 2013, and doing the work of 2 riders in 2011. If you call Wiggo's 2012 snoozy MTT work a dominant GT display, I humbly suggest you need to watch more racing.

you make it sound like no other team bothered to show up.:rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Fair enough. Restating, it was a combination of the widespread introduction of EPO and some unspecified decline in Lemond's abilities.
Agreed.

Perhaps the pyschological blow of EPO struck him harder than Hampsten and is that the reason why Hamp hang on during those years where Greg cracked.

But that's guesswork. What we do know is that after 1991 till at least 2005 we haven't seen a GT winner who didn't use blood vector doping. And that's only if we accept winners who are not directly touched by a scandal to be clean (CS, CE, BW), something a betting man wouldn't touch with a bargepole.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
I hope there will be sufficiently concealing tailwinds for Froome to dare and go absolutely full alien in the Tour, he's laying down the PR groundwork already. I admire the wonders of modern biochemistry.
 

Will Carter

BANNED
May 14, 2014
167
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Riis was quite tall for a climber.
QUOTE]

Now that is an interesting comment. What stats do we have that a climber has to be small? I know in the past a lot of them have been, but does that mean a tall guy cant be a climber? And lets forget Riis since he was chemical ...
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Riis was quite tall for a climber.

Will Carter said:
Now that is an interesting comment. What stats do we have that a climber has to be small? I know in the past a lot of them have been, but does that mean a tall guy cant be a climber? And lets forget Riis since he was chemical ...

It tended to be small guys due to weight. Dont recall any tall climbers that made an impact on the sport until EPO was introduced.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Will Carter said:
Now that is an interesting comment. What stats do we have that a climber has to be small? I know in the past a lot of them have been, but does that mean a tall guy cant be a climber? And lets forget Riis since he was chemical ...

Though climbers are generally short, there have been long climbers before epo was around. I'm sure that the percentages short/long changed a bit, but I would be very careful to say that's all epo.

A good example we all know are Lemond, Hinault and Fignon). They weren't the best climber every day, but they certainly were the best climbers over a whole TdF. What they had in common was strength. Where the small guys were out of power after a few days these guys just hammered through.

Anquetil was a long guy, Merckx was a athlete compared to his competitors.

Long story short: There have been plenty of tall guys being great climbers.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
Will Carter said:
Now that is an interesting comment. What stats do we have that a climber has to be small? I know in the past a lot of them have been, but does that mean a tall guy cant be a climber? And lets forget Riis since he was chemical ...

If you did a regression of ascent times on height, you'd see that smaller riders climb better on average.

Drawing upon advanced physics, we can even theoretically explain this baffling phenomenon. Taller riders are heavier. Heaver riders have to perform more work to do the same climb.
 
SeriousSam said:
If you did a regression of ascent times on height, you'd see that smaller riders climb better on average.

Drawing upon advanced physics, we can even theoretically explain this baffling phenomenon. Taller riders are heavier. Heaver riders have to perform more work to do the same climb.

No, that's not the reason. Physically, there is no advantage for smaller riders on climbs. Bigger riders have to lift more weight, but given the same body shape, they have greater muscles to do that.

The advantage is physiological, they have greater surface area/weight, which means greater V02max/kg. Their air passages are larger per unit weight.

Greater surface area/weight is a disadvantage in flat riding, but it's an advantage in climbing.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
No, that's not the reason. Physically, there is no advantage for smaller riders on climbs. Bigger riders have to lift more weight, but given the same body shape, they have greater muscles to do that.
Given that the extra work heavier riders have to perform is linear in weight, the extra greatness of the muscles would have to be at least linear in weight as well to cancel this out. But I'm pretty sure it's convex for very low weights but progresses to concave as the weight goes up, so at a certain point, putting on weight makes you slower up the hill. This is the case in many other sports too. Some extremely strong heavy athletes simply cannot perform feats of strength such as pullups as effectively as lighter, less powerful athletes because they have put on muscle mass past the point where for this particular movement, the power gains exceed the extra work that has to be performed.


Merckx index said:
The advantage is physiological, they have greater surface area/weight, which means greater V02max/kg. Their air passages are larger per unit weight.

Greater surface area/weight is a disadvantage in flat riding, but it's an advantage in climbing.
Don't understand any of this, gonna have to do some reading. Could be that my condescending physics post is actually totally wrong, though. :eek:
 
SeriousSam said:
Given that the extra work heavier riders have to perform is linear in weight, the extra greatness of the muscles would have to be at least linear in weight as well to cancel this out. But I'm pretty sure it's convex for very low weights but progresses to concave as the weight goes up, so at a certain point, putting on weight makes you slower up the hill. This is the case in many other sports too. Some extremely strong heavy athletes simply cannot perform feats of strength such as pullups as effectively as lighter, less powerful athletes because they have put on muscle mass past the point where for this particular movement, the power gains exceed the extra work that has to be performed.

Weight and muscle mass both go up with the cube of height, given the same body shape. So muscle mass matches the weight that has to be pulled up the climb.

There may be effects such as you suggest, but they're not likely to be significant for riders. Even strong flat riders like Cancellara and Martin are rather slender by the standards of ordinary people. Keep in mind that road riders are all very thin compared to, say, track sprinters, let alone athletes in other types of sports.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
As Merckx Index says, a smaller guy has a big disadvantage (pun intended), which is that the size of their organs is the same size as a bigger guy and thus proportionally bigger. IOW, a smaller guy has proportionally more balast.

Yet on the other hand, again as MI says there's an upside here as well, which is that this also means some important organs are proportionally bigger :D

This is why even though climbers certainly have a lage proportion of small guys, there have always been long guys who could climb well. Climbing is not just a weight issue.

And generally surviving several gruelling stages in a row tended to favor the power riders over the lite goats. Because what many people don't realize is that even Hinault took most times in the mountains and not in the TT! A guy like Winnen or Breu would clobber him for a minute just to be loosing thrice that (if they were lucky) the next days.
 
42x16ss said:
I'm probably wrong but weren't Bahamontes and Poulidor fairly tall?

No, you just get that sense because they were much taller than almost every other climber you usually see around them in pics or videos.
Bahamontes 1,74 and Poulidor 1,72

Until EPO, a tall Tour winner or contender was an extremely rare thing. Anquetil at 1,76 and Coppi at 1,77 were considered unreasonably tall for climbers. They just had so much power they could also climb, but their strength was in the TT. From the time mountain finishes were first included the first very tall Tour winner I can think of is Merckx at 1,85
 
Lemond's got it wrong about first and second place.

At best Wiggins could take third, at best, because Contador will attack and leave Brad behind on the climbs.

One interesting prospect, however, is the cobbles. Wiggins is surely the best of the GC contenders on cobbled terrain. Imagine if he came out with a minute on Froome.

But what if Froome crashes out that stage? Wouldn't it be worth having another ace in the stack on the tream?
 
GuyIncognito said:
No, you just get that sense because they were much taller than almost every other climber you usually see around them in pics or videos.
Bahamontes 1,74 and Poulidor 1,72

Until EPO, a tall Tour winner or contender was an extremely rare thing. Anquetil at 1,76 and Coppi at 1,77 were considered unreasonably tall for climbers. They just had so much power they could also climb, but their strength was in the TT. From the time mountain finishes were first included the first very tall Tour winner I can think of is Merckx at 1,85

And isn't Wiggins the tallest tdf winner ever, or at least close. Same if we expand to all gts.

But hey, he was just naturally talented (so naturally talented that a few months after concentrating properly he was able to ride faster than any non doper ever had)