LeMond II

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

You are left to argue aerodynamics don't matter. Ok.

Other than aerodynamics and Fignon's saddle sore/lack of rest and lemonds superior time trial ability.... How did he take 2 seconds a k out of Fignon? What else could possibly explain it?

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

You are left to argue aerodynamics don't matter. Ok.

Other than aerodynamics and Fignon's saddle sore/lack of rest and lemonds superior time trial ability.... How did he take 2 seconds a k out of Fignon? What else could possibly explain it?

You're the one "trying" to explain the magic of "substantial aerodynamic advantage" without explaining what it is and how it translated into he significant time gain by LeMond. LeMond has the same aerodynamics on stage five as he did the final stage.

Somehow LeMond found a minute in 24km that previously he could only gain in 73km. Bizarre. Fignon was faster than LeMond in the short Prologue

I guess we may never know what propelled LeMond that final day.

Perhaps it was the lack of a saddle sore over a short distance

 

[poupou]

Re: LeMond

and what a comparaison with Marie or Yates?
What should we conclude?
stage 5:
1. Greg LeMond en 1h38'12"(/Moy : 44.602 km/h/)
2. Delgado à 24"
3. Fignon à 56"
4. Marie à 1'51"
5. Yates à 2'06"
6. Breukink à 2'16"
7. Lejarreta à 2'20"
8. Bauer à 2'50"
9. Bugno à 2'53"
10. P.Simon à 3'19"
11. Roche à 3'22"
12. Indurain à 3'32"

Vs Champs:
1. Greg LeMond en 26'57" (/Moy : 54.545 km/h/)
2. Marie à 33"
3. Fignon à 58"
4. Nijdam à 1'07"
5. Yates à 1'10"
6. Maechler
7. Wechselberger à 1'11"
8. Mottet à 1'16"
9. Beuker à 1'19"
10. Skibby à 1'22"
11. Colotti à 1'24"
12. Maassen à 1'27"
13. Van Hooydonck
14. Bauer à 1'31"
15. Kiefel à 1'32"
16. Stevenhaagen à 1'36"
17. Indurain à 1'39"

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

You are left to argue aerodynamics don't matter. Ok.

Other than aerodynamics and Fignon's saddle sore/lack of rest and lemonds superior time trial ability.... How did he take 2 seconds a k out of Fignon? What else could possibly explain it?

You're the one "trying" to explain the magic of "substantial aerodynamic advantage" without explaining what it is and how it translated into he significant time gain by LeMond. LeMond has the same aerodynamics on stage five as he did the final stage.

Somehow LeMond found a minute in 24km that previously he could only gain in 73km. Bizarre. Fignon was faster than LeMond in the short Prologue

I guess we may never know what propelled LeMond that final day.

Perhaps it was the lack of a saddle sore over a short distance

Not much magic in coefficients of drag related to frontal area. It's really just maths. But then you already know this.

Beyond that cycling is like that. Some days you are good, some not so good. Why just this year Dawg crushed everybody on the first mountain top finish. Then struggled mightily on the Alpe How in the world was Quintana mediocre one day and two weeks later just killing it?

I guess we'll never know.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: LeMond

and what a comparaison with Marie or Yates?
What should we conclude?
stage 5:
1. Greg LeMond en 1h38'12"(/Moy : 44.602 km/h/)
2. Delgado à 24"
3. Fignon à 56"
4. Marie à 1'51"
5. Yates à 2'06"
6. Breukink à 2'16"
7. Lejarreta à 2'20"
8. Bauer à 2'50"
9. Bugno à 2'53"
10. P.Simon à 3'19"
11. Roche à 3'22"
12. Indurain à 3'32"

Vs Champs:
1. Greg LeMond en 26'57" (/Moy : 54.545 km/h/)
2. Marie à 33"
3. Fignon à 58"
4. Nijdam à 1'07"
5. Yates à 1'10"
6. Maechler
7. Wechselberger à 1'11"
8. Mottet à 1'16"
9. Beuker à 1'19"
10. Skibby à 1'22"
11. Colotti à 1'24"
12. Maassen à 1'27"
13. Van Hooydonck
14. Bauer à 1'31"
15. Kiefel à 1'32"
16. Stevenhaagen à 1'36"
17. Indurain à 1'39"

Dont use those statistics when you can invent something.

Hoggy needs to improve here.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

You are left to argue aerodynamics don't matter. Ok.

Other than aerodynamics and Fignon's saddle sore/lack of rest and lemonds superior time trial ability.... How did he take 2 seconds a k out of Fignon? What else could possibly explain it?

You're the one "trying" to explain the magic of "substantial aerodynamic advantage" without explaining what it is and how it translated into he significant time gain by LeMond. LeMond has the same aerodynamics on stage five as he did the final stage.

Somehow LeMond found a minute in 24km that previously he could only gain in 73km. Bizarre. Fignon was faster than LeMond in the short Prologue

I guess we may never know what propelled LeMond that final day.

Perhaps it was the lack of a saddle sore over a short distance

Not much magic in coefficients of drag related to frontal area. It's really just maths. But then you already know this.

Beyond that cycling is like that. Some days you are good, some not so good. Why just this year Dawg crushed everybody on the first mountain top finish. Then struggled mightily on the Alpe How in the world was Quintana mediocre one day and two weeks later just killing it?

I guess we'll never know.

Or LeMond going from tailender at the Giro to Tour crushing champ in one month.

It is maths, 24km vs 73km, same time gain, wow.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

Some of the advantage probably also came from the fact he'd not been awake half the night and didn't have a sore backside.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: LeMond

Substantial Aero advantage was the tailwind of the 80's

LeMond was using the tri-bars in he stage 5 time trial over 73km gaining 56 seconds on Fignon.

So where did his "substantial aero advantage" come over 24km to gain similar amount of time?

A tailwind?

You are left to argue aerodynamics don't matter. Ok.

Other than aerodynamics and Fignon's saddle sore/lack of rest and lemonds superior time trial ability.... How did he take 2 seconds a k out of Fignon? What else could possibly explain it?

You're the one "trying" to explain the magic of "substantial aerodynamic advantage" without explaining what it is and how it translated into he significant time gain by LeMond. LeMond has the same aerodynamics on stage five as he did the final stage.

Somehow LeMond found a minute in 24km that previously he could only gain in 73km. Bizarre. Fignon was faster than LeMond in the short Prologue

I guess we may never know what propelled LeMond that final day.

Perhaps it was the lack of a saddle sore over a short distance

Not much magic in coefficients of drag related to frontal area. It's really just maths. But then you already know this.

Beyond that cycling is like that. Some days you are good, some not so good. Why just this year Dawg crushed everybody on the first mountain top finish. Then struggled mightily on the Alpe How in the world was Quintana mediocre one day and two weeks later just killing it?

I guess we'll never know.

Or LeMond going from tailender at the Giro to Tour crushing champ in one month.

It is maths, 24km vs 73km, same time gain, wow.

Oh brah, I know. The course and conditions were the same an everything. I mean except for the rain... That was different. Did you know drag coefficients go up exponentially with speed? Crazy right? Aero advantage at 54kph is greater than 45kph and so on. But then you knew that already.

Oh and guys that aren't podium contenders at the Giro never do well at the TdF. It's never happened. I mean except for GL.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: LeMond

Oh brah, I know. The course and conditions were the same an everything. I mean except for the rain... That was different. Did you know drag coefficients go up exponentially with speed? Crazy right? Aero advantage at 54kph is greater than 45kph and so on. But then you knew that already.

Oh and guys that aren't podium contenders at the Giro never do well at the TdF. It's never happened. I mean except for GL.

Goes up with wind speed you say... Like when the windiest day in 1989 is blowing at your left flank, drag goes down? Like that? I do agree. Most wholeheartedly.

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

The might win one race for the year, even the Coors Classic before smashing the Tour Froome style

 

[MarkvW]

Re: LeMond

The might win one race for the year, even the Coors Classic before smashing the Tour Froome style

When you apply the Froome-level Clinic "analysis" to LeMond, things do get weird.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: LeMond

The might win one race for the year, even the Coors Classic before smashing the Tour Froome style

When you apply the Froome-level Clinic "analysis" to LeMond, things do get weird.

Not sure I am following? Froome wins more than one race pre-Tour.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: LeMond

The might win one race for the year, even the Coors Classic before smashing the Tour Froome style

Froome style? When is the last time Froome won by eight seconds?

Oh that's right. Never.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

The might win one race for the year, even the Coors Classic before smashing the Tour Froome style

Froome style? When is the last time Froome won by eight seconds?

Oh that's right. Never.

Correct, no one has won by 8 seconds other than LeMond.

Froome won the last Tour by just over one minute. Which was the time LeMond managed to recover in one very short ITT of 24km

Your point is?

 

[Afrank]

Let's stay on topic, the thread is not about Froome.

 

[observer]

maybe one guy was more tired then the other.
maybe it has nothing to do with coefficients and drag or doping.
maybe one guy was less tired in the first TT and more in the final TT in comparison with the other one.
maybe one has an identical twin he keeps hidden who happens to be awesome over short TTs.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re:

Let's stay on topic, the thread is not about Froome.

Neither is it about Lemond. Not any more. It has decayed mostly into a vehicle for making specious accusations against Lemond, presumedly for the purpose of elevating the reputation of [insert cyclist's name here] by diminishing that of Lemond.


What I wrote in another thread almost two years ago is no less true today:

There is exactly as much credible evidence that Lemond fired the shot from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza as there is he ever used PEDs.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Let's stay on topic, the thread is not about Froome.

Neither is it about Lemond. Not any more. It has decayed mostly into a vehicle for making specious accusations against Lemond, in a sad attempt to elevate the notoriety of [insert POSTER's name here] by diminishing that of Lemond.


What I wrote in another thread almost two years ago is no less true today:

There is exactly as much credible evidence that Lemond fired the shot from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza as there is he ever used PEDs.

Fixed that for you.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

Here's the final time trial from the Tour De Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHfyUzfbJr8

I remember reading that it was fact that LeMond finished fourth behind three 7-11 riders that he considered using aero/tri bars.

Whew, Greg blowing past Davis - bullhorns versus aerobars - is impressive.

wrt Le Tour, did anyone not have an aero helmet at that 89 TdT? WTF was Fignon thinking with no aero helmet and a ponytail? Not like TdF was an important race or anything.

Dumb.

Dave.

 

[GJB123]

Geez, this thread is still going? Who would have thunk?

 

[thehog]

Re:

maybe one guy was more tired then the other.
maybe it has nothing to do with coefficients and drag or doping.
maybe one guy was less tired in the first TT and more in the final TT in comparison with the other one.
maybe one has an identical twin he keeps hidden who happens to be awesome over short TTs.

I tried to find LeMond's results for the 89 season, they are scarce. He got 63rd at Flanders, rode mid pack at the Giro but did win the final TT. I think he rode MSR that year as well?

I don't think there much mud that sticks to LeMond in terms of doping. It's just that his post career actions don't fall in line with his anti-doping stance he appeared to take. Just an opinion.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Geez, this thread is still going? Who would have thunk?

LeMond reiginited this thread with his love-ins at the TdF with all the lovely nice ex dopers

It would appear with LeMond, USA* dopers bad, rest of world dopers good.

*Especially TdF winners.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Geez, this thread is still going? Who would have thunk?

LeMond reiginited this thread with his love-ins at the TdF with all the lovely nice ex dopers

It would appear with LeMond, USA* dopers bad, rest of world dopers good.

*Especially TdF winners.

Lemond is one of those guys who actually, truly loves the sport. It wasn't just a vehicle to support his other ambitions (i.e., guys like Armstrong) - he actually loves the sport. The one which he was ostracized from for nearly a decade. The sport went from dirty to cesspool right about the time he retired, but what's a guy like him supposed to do? In his heart he's still a cyclist and gets a thrill from being "home" at the races that define his passions.

In other words, I get how he can be clean, against doping, and yet still want to embrace the sport and all the flawed people around it. Just don't try to ruin him, destroy his reputation and his livelihood because he won't back down. Ever.

John Swanson

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Geez, this thread is still going? Who would have thunk?

LeMond reiginited this thread with his love-ins at the TdF with all the lovely nice ex dopers

It would appear with LeMond, USA* dopers bad, rest of world dopers good.

*Especially TdF winners.

Lemond is one of those guys who actually, truly loves the sport. It wasn't just a vehicle to support his other ambitions (i.e., guys like Armstrong) - he actually loves the sport. The one which he was ostracized from for nearly a decade. The sport went from dirty to cesspool right about the time he retired, but what's a guy like him supposed to do? In his heart he's still a cyclist and gets a thrill from being "home" at the races that define his passions.

In other words, I get how he can be clean, against doping, and yet still want to embrace the sport and all the flawed people around it. Just don't try to ruin him, destroy his reputation and his livelihood because he won't back down. Ever.

John Swanson

This. Exactly.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand. The argument seems to be "If Lemond doesn't see anti-doping in the same black-and-white way I do, he must be compromised". Seems silly.