• 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!

Paris-Roubaix VS. Kona Ironman

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Visit site
Which one is harder to win? I am thinking on some competition aspect.

Some thinking that Kona IM is hardest one day competition on the globe, but what about Paris-Roubaix? Does those events could be comparable on endurance and menthal toughness?
If we just compare course lenghts and time to finish; IM 140.6, and PR 160 miles, IM just over 8 hours, PR 2010 6h35min, we did not discovered too much.
I vote for both.
 
Aug 19, 2010
62
0
0
Visit site
For athletic events that can be completed in 24 hours there is a 100 mile ultra running marathon that I would say drops both the Iron Man and Paris Roubaix way off the back. The Hardrock 100, taking place around Silverton, Colorado includes 34,000 ft (10,361 meters) of climbing and descending at an average elevation of 11,000 ft (3,360 meters) with a high point of 14,048 ft (4,282 meters). It has been completed two or three times in 24 hours, but the average finishing time is 41 hours and 10 minutes. In a typical year, about 50 percent finish by the 48 hour cutoff time. The Barkley Marathon at Frozen Head State Park, Tennessee is a lot harder, but also at 100 miles, the fastest Barkley time is 55 hours and 42 minutes. However, only 9 of 700 people who have entered that race have finished in the 60 hour time limit.
 
difficulty is also how much effort you the athlete put out just to finish. so choose your poison, it's going to be hard. how hard is up to you. a hard 10k run
can kick your ****. easier to recover from, but while you are in the moment...ouch.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
oldborn said:
Which one is harder to win?

The one that is harder to win is the one that has the highest level of competition. It is not even a contest, the level of competition at Paris Roubaix is many times higher then Ironman.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
oldborn said:
Which one is harder to win? I am thinking on some competition aspect.

Some thinking that Kona IM is hardest one day competition on the globe, but what about Paris-Roubaix? Does those events could be comparable on endurance and menthal toughness?
If we just compare course lenghts and time to finish; IM 140.6, and PR 160 miles, IM just over 8 hours, PR 2010 6h35min, we did not discovered too much.
I vote for both.

IM jack of all trades master of none kind of thing. The run is just plodding survival. We used to have a saying in running "if you can't win just go longer" That is kind of the whole idea to me behind IM distance events, long, low quality efforts put together to look impressive.
and by low quality i mean in comparison to what it takes to be "Elite" in one of the disciplines. That kind of applies to some of the comments about ultra"running" when you are doing glorified hiking and doing 10-15 minutes a mile and still competitive sorry that is just sad. Like badwater"oh lets pick a really long run in a place so hot that the winner is "running" slower than the average person can walk" that is not athletic prowess just pure determination and pain tolerance.
Just another reference point at IM the top pros "run" a marathon in a few minutes under three hours
In race walking 50km's the best go through the marathon in just a couple minutes over 3 hours. When your best runners are averaging less than 30 seconds a mile faster than a walker
you are no longer "running"

Just another observation is that following the sport for many years you could see triathlon was desperate to "improve" they didnt have anyone who could really improve the times of Tinley, Allen, Scott, Molina etc from a marketing standpoint, Soooo what do you do? Make the bike draft legal so you can have times lowered substantially. Only problem is everyone by and large sits on now during the bike and only the best runners win.
So times look sort of stagnant in terms of improvement from 30 years ago.

Paris Roubaix is a sufferfest which still requires a high quality effort over a long period of time, good tactics, and a good dose of luck. You cannot "sit on" as ever time over the cobbles takes quite an effort. When they hit the Arenburg forest they are absolutely flying, hard to handle that much speed on cobbles, let alone wet cobbles, then trying to negotiate potholes & falling riders when your bike is borderline out of control , takes tremendous bike handling ability
 
Mar 12, 2009
553
0
0
Visit site
I concur with PR being the hardest in terms of "competition".

IN terms of events that can be completed in 24hr I would say the 24hr MTB events would be right up there. Not often you see a professional of the sport collapse and fold up refusing to complete the event (apart from rowing at the Olympics perhaps).
 
Autobus said:
For athletic events that can be completed in 24 hours there is a 100 mile ultra running marathon that I would say drops both the Iron Man and Paris Roubaix way off the back. The Hardrock 100, taking place around Silverton, Colorado includes 34,000 ft (10,361 meters) of climbing and descending at an average elevation of 11,000 ft (3,360 meters) with a high point of 14,048 ft (4,282 meters). It has been completed two or three times in 24 hours, but the average finishing time is 41 hours and 10 minutes. In a typical year, about 50 percent finish by the 48 hour cutoff time. The Barkley Marathon at Frozen Head State Park, Tennessee is a lot harder, but also at 100 miles, the fastest Barkley time is 55 hours and 42 minutes. However, only 9 of 700 people who have entered that race have finished in the 60 hour time limit.

Barkely Marathons cannot even be called a race; it's more of a joke, lots of bushwhacking while trying to navigate with no trail. You cannot exactly race when you have no freakin' idea where you are supposed to go.

Hardrock is the real deal, though. Just brutal. Way way more difficult than Leadville.
 
runninboy said:
Just another observation is that following the sport for many years you could see triathlon was desperate to "improve" they didnt have anyone who could really improve the times of Tinley, Allen, Scott, Molina etc from a marketing standpoint, Soooo what do you do? Make the bike draft legal so you can have times lowered substantially. Only problem is everyone by and large sits on now during the bike and only the best runners win.

Making drafting legal had nothing to do with trying to improve finish times. It was a byproduct of trying to make the sport spectator friendly. The idea was to use bike courses consisting of several loops so that people could see the riders several times during the bike. This also had a side effect of requiring a lot less road, so staging an event was easier. Lots of riders on short loops make avoiding drafting difficult. To make matters worse, the premier event for international competition became the Olympic distance tri. The short swim means that lots of people get out of the water together,, making avoidance of drafting even harder. The solution was to just make drafting legal, completely changing the nature of sport. The end result is that recreational triathletes don't give a damn about the draft legal events of the world championships or the Olympics because it is so far removed from the races the average Joe Triathlete does every month.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Visit site
I am agree that IM hurts triathlon, it becomes a big $$$ show. I am not a fan of insane races like Sahara marathon, Deca Ironman:eek: or some 100 miles events where you have a 5 competitors arround globe and 2 somehow manage to finish. All those races are pure mind ****ing things it has nothing to do with sport anymore.

For triathlon events 1 swimm-10 bike-4 run formula seems fair for all three disciplines, of course non-drafting is mandatory.

I have been reading statements of some PR riders, some of them said that "Hell of the north" is even harder than 3 weeks TDF?, and it takes 4-7 days of full recovery.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Making drafting legal had nothing to do with trying to improve finish times. It was a byproduct of trying to make the sport spectator friendly. The idea was to use bike courses consisting of several loops so that people could see the riders several times during the bike. This also had a side effect of requiring a lot less road, so staging an event was easier. Lots of riders on short loops make avoiding drafting difficult. To make matters worse, the premier event for international competition became the Olympic distance tri. The short swim means that lots of people get out of the water together,, making avoidance of drafting even harder. The solution was to just make drafting legal, completely changing the nature of sport. The end result is that recreational triathletes don't give a damn about the draft legal events of the world championships or the Olympics because it is so far removed from the races the average Joe Triathlete does every month.

Good answer but i think the truth lies somewhere inbetween
I find it hard to believe that making one leg easier was just an unintended consequence in a sport with a credibility problem.
After all top marathon venues close more roads than would be needed for a triathlon and they also have no problem getting spectators.
As far as my contention that the sport had a credibility problem, it was pushed by the media as the Ulitimate test much like RAAM.
However when your rules allow certification of a course that can be 10 percent short it kind of strains credibility and the hyperbole that we saw with triathlon. Could you imagine if the best decathlete in the world could not high jump 6 ft or break five minutes for the mile? It would be just a collection of mediocre performance strung together to make it appear more than the sum of its parts.
Even now the technique and strategy in triathlon is so far behind other sports. In the Olympics because of drafting you have gone from what appears to be an individual event to what could be exploited as a team event. But the countries don't race like that. If China for instance trains a swimmer into a great cyclist and a runner who is a decent swimmer the two of the them could work in tandem to put quite a gap on the field.
In the Olympics people are concentrating on individual gold no one is going to sacrifice their chances chasing someone and towing a better runner to victory. These guys ride in a pack at 26 mph. hardly an elite effort worthy of the Olympics.
Just like Jock Boyer showed that RAAM was more a test in sleep deprivation by less than elite cyclists, the triathlon is just a really good marketing gimmick that has resulted in thousands of "athletes" paying hundreds of dollars to do a medicore swim, pedal a bike at less than 20mph and walk a marathon. the fact that there is group than can do better does not put them on a level with Elite athletes.
and back to the OP question
when you add in the fact that one of the better cyclists in the World disappeared from his team on the eve of PR allegedly because he got a glimpse first hand what an ungodly suffer fest it was going to be, Yeah PR could be one of the hardest events in sport. I wont mention any names because he is a good guy and he was pretty young but if you really want to know just re read Paul Kimmages first book.
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
Visit site
The thing that makes cycle racing so hard is you cant go at your own pace - you're governed by the speed of the bunch and you tend to get out of your comfort zone.. you have to stay with the bunch even though you might be blowing to bits. Triathlon isnt a race as such more a test of endurence. Everybody seemingly going at their own plodding pace and so I reckon thats easier.

Running can be tough though particularly shorter distances where you tend to go into oxygen debt if you push too hard. Well i used too anyway.
 
Oct 1, 2010
320
0
0
Visit site
runninboy said:
IM jack of all trades master of none kind of thing. The run is just plodding survival. We used to have a saying in running "if you can't win just go longer" That is kind of the whole idea to me behind IM distance events, long, low quality efforts put together to look impressive.
and by low quality i mean in comparison to what it takes to be "Elite" in one of the disciplines. That kind of applies to some of the comments about ultra"running" when you are doing glorified hiking and doing 10-15 minutes a mile and still competitive sorry that is just sad. Like badwater"oh lets pick a really long run in a place so hot that the winner is "running" slower than the average person can walk" that is not athletic prowess just pure determination and pain tolerance.
Just another reference point at IM the top pros "run" a marathon in a few minutes under three hours
In race walking 50km's the best go through the marathon in just a couple minutes over 3 hours. When your best runners are averaging less than 30 seconds a mile faster than a walker
you are no longer "running"

Just another observation is that following the sport for many years you could see triathlon was desperate to "improve" they didnt have anyone who could really improve the times of Tinley, Allen, Scott, Molina etc from a marketing standpoint, Soooo what do you do? Make the bike draft legal so you can have times lowered substantially. Only problem is everyone by and large sits on now during the bike and only the best runners win.
So times look sort of stagnant in terms of improvement from 30 years ago.

Paris Roubaix is a sufferfest which still requires a high quality effort over a long period of time, good tactics, and a good dose of luck. You cannot "sit on" as ever time over the cobbles takes quite an effort. When they hit the Arenburg forest they are absolutely flying, hard to handle that much speed on cobbles, let alone wet cobbles, then trying to negotiate potholes & falling riders when your bike is borderline out of control , takes tremendous bike handling ability

If you knew the history of IM, you'd know that it wasn't started to look impressive, rather it was to try to settle the question of who were the superior athletes; swimmers, cyclists or runner. The guy credited with starting IM argued that cyclists were the best athletes.

I agree that PR is much harder to win - no argument there IMO. And IM athletes are jacks of all trades.

However, the fastest marathon at IM Kona is 2:40, hardly a "few minutes" under 3 hours. While it's not anywhere near world class time, it is done on an undulating course after 180km cycle time trial.

Drafting is not officially legal in IM races - you are getting confused with Olympic distance tris. IM is not always won by the best runner - Normann Stadler won in 2006 after setting the bike course record.

Times haven't stagnated in IM from 30 years ago. In 1980, Dave Scott won the race in 9:24. The record now is 8:04. Funny you should mention stagnated times. The fastest time for Paris-Roubaix was achieved by the late Peter Post in 1964. Different course, I know, but the next 3 fastest times were all achieved prior to 1961. Which proves nothing - the race doesn't have to be fast to be exciting to watch, P-R or IM.

Luck arguably plays less of a part in how IM is won, compared to P-R - look at Demol's win in 1988.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
AngusW said:
If you knew the history of IM, you'd know that it wasn't started to look impressive, rather it was to try to settle the question of who were the superior athletes; swimmers, cyclists or runner. The guy credited with starting IM argued that cyclists were the best athletes.

I agree that PR is much harder to win - no argument there IMO. And IM athletes are jacks of all trades.

However, the fastest marathon at IM Kona is 2:40, hardly a "few minutes" under 3 hours. While it's not anywhere near world class time, it is done on an undulating course after 180km cycle time trial.

Drafting is not officially legal in IM races - you are getting confused with Olympic distance tris. IM is not always won by the best runner - Normann Stadler won in 2006 after setting the bike course record.

Times haven't stagnated in IM from 30 years ago. In 1980, Dave Scott won the race in 9:24. The record now is 8:04. Funny you should mention stagnated times. The fastest time for Paris-Roubaix was achieved by the late Peter Post in 1964. Different course, I know, but the next 3 fastest times were all achieved prior to 1961. Which proves nothing - the race doesn't have to be fast to be exciting to watch, P-R or IM.

Luck arguably plays less of a part in how IM is won, compared to P-R - look at Demol's win in 1988.

Lots of good points , i realize i tend to flip back and forth between Im & draft legal events of which i am quite aware.

I was addressing certain issues. Drafting in the Olympic Triathlon pretty much hands that event to the best runner. Also making drafting legal because you have a hard time closing 25 mile bike courses is not an excuse when only a few events are draft legal and these same venues hve no problem closing longer distances for marathons.
In regards to marketing, i was talking not about how the sport started but what it became later. Kona was sold long ago, the person involved in starting Kona had no bearing on the way the event is run today or its marketing. When Television notched up the hype in Triathlon & RAAM and tried to draw parallels with other sports that have been around for quite some time i started to see more hype than substance.

While you claim the Kona record is 2:40 fair enough. That is the record, by and large the top 5 men every year are "running" at closer to 3hr than they are to 2:40. BTW the marathon record for 65 year old men is 2:42 and Considering as i stated a world class walker can walk close to as fast as these guys it is not much of a run no matter what u put before or the conditions encountered. IMO it is simply not an "Elite" athletic event.
Difficult yes, Elite and worthy of all the Hype no.

As far as stagnant yes,my bad I made a mistake in throwing out the 30 year figure and should have went with the true figure of 22 years to when Dave Scott was wrapping up his career and aero bike equipment was closer to what it is today.
Dave came in second at 8:10 and ran a 2:45 marathon split
two decades later the records are 8:04 and 2:40
I realize you are probably a big fan but over the course of 8 hours a 6 minute improvement does not impress me very much.
Just checked the website of the top 21 pros 6 were able to break 2:50 15 were not
5 of the top 21 did not break 3 hrs
4 were faster than 2:45
so more of the top runners were over 3hrs vs those that ran faster than Dave Scott did over 22 years ago
 
Oct 1, 2010
320
0
0
Visit site
runninboy said:
Lots of good points , i realize i tend to flip back and forth between Im & draft legal events of which i am quite aware.

I was addressing certain issues. Drafting in the Olympic Triathlon pretty much hands that event to the best runner. Also making drafting legal because you have a hard time closing 25 mile bike courses is not an excuse when only a few events are draft legal and these same venues hve no problem closing longer distances for marathons.
In regards to marketing, i was talking not about how the sport started but what it became later. Kona was sold long ago, the person involved in starting Kona had no bearing on the way the event is run today or its marketing. When Television notched up the hype in Triathlon & RAAM and tried to draw parallels with other sports that have been around for quite some time i started to see more hype than substance.

While you claim the Kona record is 2:40 fair enough. That is the record, by and large the top 5 men every year are "running" at closer to 3hr than they are to 2:40. BTW the marathon record for 65 year old men is 2:42 and Considering as i stated a world class walker can walk close to as fast as these guys it is not much of a run no matter what u put before or the conditions encountered. IMO it is simply not an "Elite" athletic event.
Difficult yes, Elite and worthy of all the Hype no.

As far as stagnant yes,my bad I made a mistake in throwing out the 30 year figure and should have went with the true figure of 22 years to when Dave Scott was wrapping up his career and aero bike equipment was closer to what it is today.
Dave came in second at 8:10 and ran a 2:45 marathon split
two decades later the records are 8:04 and 2:40
I realize you are probably a big fan but over the course of 8 hours a 6 minute improvement does not impress me very much.
Just checked the website of the top 21 pros 6 were able to break 2:50 15 were not
5 of the top 21 did not break 3 hrs
4 were faster than 2:45
so more of the top runners were over 3hrs vs those that ran faster than Dave Scott did over 22 years ago

Good reply, and on the whole I agree with the points you make. Triathlon is what it is - those who make their living from it will love it and take it very seriously, but even the top guys are never going to be millionaires from it. Whether or not it is an elite sport depends on your definition of elite. Triathletes are attempting to be the best they can be at triathlon, not the best runner, swimmer or cyclist. It's a young sport and it's trying hard to be taken seriously, but the money in it is a joke - worse even than cycling.

If you've checked out the stats you'll realise that the Kona record was set in 1996 and nobody's come close to that time since. Despite that, IM has probably become more popular with the masses (those plodders, like me) that you're talking about. So the IM organisers don't care, they're making their money and don't need to offer more prize money to attract "elite" athletes. I did my first IM in 1997, my last in 2009. In both races the first place prize money was the same (USD8500). No increase in 12 years. It's not exactly going to have elite runners, swimmers and cyclists queueing up to become pro triathletes, is it? But as long as World Triathlon Corporation is making their dough, the elite sport part of it is someone else's problem. BTW, I'm not a fan of the hype either, and as for being a big triathlon fan, I spend much more time following cycle racing.

Like I said, triathlon is what it is, and the best triathlete usually wins the race, not the best runner, swimmer or cyclist (except in Olympic distance, where I agree with you, the best runners win). I don't claim it to be elite or anything, in particular. I did triathlons because I love both running and cycling (not so keen on swimming) and it gave me the opportunity to do both.

If you look at the early history of cycle racing, you may actually see some parallels with triathlon today - the hype, open to the masses, very popular, very long distance and professionals being badly paid. Even the Tour de France, that most elitist of events, was open to the touriste-routiers until the 1930s.

IMO, there is no comparison between the two events.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
1
0
Visit site
oldborn said:
I am agree that IM hurts triathlon, it becomes a big $$$ show. I am not a fan of insane races like Sahara marathon, Deca Ironman:eek: or some 100 miles events where you have a 5 competitors arround globe and 2 somehow manage to finish. All those races are pure mind ****ing things it has nothing to do with sport anymore.

For triathlon events 1 swimm-10 bike-4 run formula seems fair for all three disciplines, of course non-drafting is mandatory.

I have been reading statements of some PR riders, some of them said that "Hell of the north" is even harder than 3 weeks TDF?, and it takes 4-7 days of full recovery.

Interesting. but comparing a one day event with a three weeks event seems a bit odd?

What about a more obvious camparison. what's more tough PR or RW? anyone. I guees the answer is that PR includes far more miles covered with cobbles. unfortunately I never had the opportunity to ride on cobbles so I can't imaging the toughness of a race like PR
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Visit site
Bike Boy said:
Interesting. but comparing a one day event with a three weeks event seems a bit odd?

What about a more obvious camparison. what's more tough PR or RW? anyone. I guees the answer is that PR includes far more miles covered with cobbles. unfortunately I never had the opportunity to ride on cobbles so I can't imaging the toughness of a race like PR

Well, riders do not ride TDF flat stages like PR, off course tactics are different. Most of those stages consists of 3-4 hours relatively confort riding, chatting, and 10-20 minutes of madness. So riders could be protected on flat, there i see a lot of endurance reserved compared to PR, but again it seems odd. Imagine that riders should rode PR course for 3 weeks as a part of stage race.
Mountains are different storry.

What is RW?
 
oldborn said:
Well, riders do not ride TDF flat stages like PR, off course tactics are different. Most of those stages consists of 3-4 hours relatively confort riding, chatting, and 10-20 minutes of madness. So riders could be protected on flat, there i see a lot of endurance reserved compared to PR, but again it seems odd. Imagine that riders should rode PR course for 3 weeks as a part of stage race.
Mountains are different storry.

What is RW?

i think he means RVV=Flanders
 
Aug 17, 2010
31
0
0
Visit site
As tough as P-R and IM Kona are, I'd have to rate the big 100+ mile endurance runs as toughest.

-HardRock 100 in Colorado (66,000 ft of climbing-winning time of 27 hours)

-HURT 100 in Hawaii (known for roughest terrain and greatest climate change)

-Badwater 135 in Death Valley (temps reaching 130 degrees)

To pick between P-R and IM (has to be Kona) IM wins.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
1
0
Visit site
oldborn said:
Well, riders do not ride TDF flat stages like PR, off course tactics are different. Most of those stages consists of 3-4 hours relatively confort riding, chatting, and 10-20 minutes of madness. So riders could be protected on flat, there i see a lot of endurance reserved compared to PR, but again it seems odd. Imagine that riders should rode PR course for 3 weeks as a part of stage race.
Mountains are different storry.

What is RW?

So I'm using short notation a bit too much it seems... As mentioned already i meant flanders.
 
Jan 4, 2010
115
0
0
Visit site
runninboy said:
Lots of good points , i realize i tend to flip back and forth between Im & draft legal events of which i am quite aware.

I was addressing certain issues. Drafting in the Olympic Triathlon pretty much hands that event to the best runner. Also making drafting legal because you have a hard time closing 25 mile bike courses is not an excuse when only a few events are draft legal and these same venues hve no problem closing longer distances for marathons.
In regards to marketing, i was talking not about how the sport started but what it became later. Kona was sold long ago, the person involved in starting Kona had no bearing on the way the event is run today or its marketing. When Television notched up the hype in Triathlon & RAAM and tried to draw parallels with other sports that have been around for quite some time i started to see more hype than substance.

While you claim the Kona record is 2:40 fair enough. That is the record, by and large the top 5 men every year are "running" at closer to 3hr than they are to 2:40. BTW the marathon record for 65 year old men is 2:42 and Considering as i stated a world class walker can walk close to as fast as these guys it is not much of a run no matter what u put before or the conditions encountered. IMO it is simply not an "Elite" athletic event.
Difficult yes, Elite and worthy of all the Hype no.

As far as stagnant yes,my bad I made a mistake in throwing out the 30 year figure and should have went with the true figure of 22 years to when Dave Scott was wrapping up his career and aero bike equipment was closer to what it is today.
Dave came in second at 8:10 and ran a 2:45 marathon split
two decades later the records are 8:04 and 2:40
I realize you are probably a big fan but over the course of 8 hours a 6 minute improvement does not impress me very much.
Just checked the website of the top 21 pros 6 were able to break 2:50 15 were not
5 of the top 21 did not break 3 hrs
4 were faster than 2:45
so more of the top runners were over 3hrs vs those that ran faster than Dave Scott did over 22 years ago

Tell me how many of those marathon runners or walkers could bike 120 miles and then run under 2:40? It is stupid to compare a marathon time from somebody who trains for it exclusively and starts fresh to somebody that has to train other events also and run it after 6 hours of endurance expenditure.

That is like saying a Decathlete is not elite because he can't jump or run higher or faster then somebody doing it exclusively.

Back on topic I still think PR is probally harder due to the quality of the field capable of winning and those cobbles have to beat you up. Still unsure how team tactics might influence that however.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
Visit site
Bike Boy said:
Interesting. but comparing a one day event with a three weeks event seems a bit odd?

What about a more obvious camparison. what's more tough PR or RW? anyone. I guees the answer is that PR includes far more miles covered with cobbles. unfortunately I never had the opportunity to ride on cobbles so I can't imaging the toughness of a race like PR

ask any pro and they will say P-R

the smooth stones in the flanders race are nothing like the brutal stones in P-R
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
1
0
Visit site
barn yard said:
ask any pro and they will say P-R

the smooth stones in the flanders race are nothing like the brutal stones in P-R

The stones on koppenberg isn't exactly smooth. However gradients of 20% ensures slow speed.
You are probably correct the cobbled sections in PR are probably a lot worse in general (and longer).

I'm very much aware of the fact that PR is harder the only reason I'm asking is because I would like to do a better job when explaining why to my brother.

I guess you have to try riding with 45 km/h on carrefour d'labre before you can grasp how hard and difficult it really is.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Visit site
Bike Boy said:
The stones on koppenberg isn't exactly smooth. However gradients of 20% ensures slow speed.
You are probably correct the cobbled sections in PR are probably a lot worse in general (and longer).

I'm very much aware of the fact that PR is harder the only reason I'm asking is because I would like to do a better job when explaining why to my brother.

I guess you have to try riding with 45 km/h on carrefour d'labre before you can grasp how hard and difficult it really is.

Those P-R stones sections locals use for tractors going on fields, so we can only imagine how bad they are.

I had never race on cobbles and not having a will to do, but i have some small sections up to 1km here in town, all i can say it is brutal, not only for bike but for yours joints, teeths, helmet, bottles, glasess, etc and overall shape after. It is better to ride faster then slower for sure. I wish some Belgium and Dutch "stone(d)" expert here give us some thoughts.

No wonder why pros put extra bar tape, and producers tried to put some suspensions on bikes for spring classics, and some "spring effect" seatposts or elastomer in seatpost.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
1
0
Visit site
oldborn said:
Those P-R stones sections locals use for tractors going on fields, so we can only imagine how bad they are.

I had never race on cobbles and not having a will to do, but i have some small sections up to 1km here in town, all i can say it is brutal, not only for bike but for yours joints, teeths, helmet, bottles, glasess, etc and overall shape after. It is better to ride faster then slower for sure. I wish some Belgium and Dutch "stone(d)" expert here give us some thoughts.

No wonder why pros put extra bar tape, and producers tried to put some suspensions on bikes for spring classics, and some "spring effect" seatposts or elastomer in seatpost.

Great description, and thanks to you I will never ever try it on my own body :)
 

TRENDING THREADS