Pulling a Wiggins

[TourOfSardinia]

I'd say weight adds to stability on the cobbles, which is essential for producing a steady output. less bouncing, more speed.

TeleTubbies peddle thrust

note climbing and descending skills -
(no cobbles in sight)

 

[Benotti69]

I'd say weight adds to stability on the cobbles, which is essential for producing a steady output. less bouncing, more speed.

Sean Kelly was not a big heavy rider.

 

[martinvickers]

Sean Kelly was not a big heavy rider.

*facepalm

Sean Kelly Interview on Paris Roubaix

What makes a great rider of the pavé?

First of all, it’s a rider who is strong and powerful. You have to be pretty heavy, or the cobbles will just hop you all over the place.

And, usually, if you have the weight, you have the power – if you’re any good. You need the power because you have to ride a gear that is higher than normal. You push a bigger gear to get the power down smoothly and keep traction.

 

[proffate]

OK, right, still sounds like quackery to me. If weight is good why don't riders get fat for PR? Is there any actual evidence that weight keeps you on the ground when riding on cobbles? I don't think heavy things bounce any less than light things. I'm pretty sure that what you need for cobbles is absolute power, not weight.

 

[SundayRider]

OK, right, still sounds like quackery to me. If weight is good why don't riders get fat for PR? Is there any actual evidence that weight keeps you on the ground when riding on cobbles? I don't think heavy things bounce any less than light things. I'm pretty sure that what you need for cobbles is absolute power, not weight.

The likes of Peter van Petegem and O'grady aren't/wern't particularly heavy.

 

[martinvickers]

OK, right, still sounds like quackery to me. If weight is good why don't riders get fat for PR? Is there any actual evidence that weight keeps you on the ground when riding on cobbles? I don't think heavy things bounce any less than light things. I'm pretty sure that what you need for cobbles is absolute power, not weight.

Do a thought experiment. An elephant sits on a bike. Does it bounce much?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Very disappointed that Wiggo stopped doping after his dominant 2012 season. Hope the Polish riders push the GB team again and lead him to needing a bit of a boost for the pursuit in Rio. Will be the last chance to catch him out.

Sad face.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Exclusive news, Pozzovivo to target Paris Roubaix after reading this thread.

 

[Netserk]

Exclusive news, Pozzovivo to target Paris Roubaix after reading this thread.

Yes he certainly can produce the absolute number of watts needed, and is a beast in long flat ITTs.

 

[Samson777]

Yes he certainly can produce the absolute number of watts needed, and is a beast in long flat ITTs.

Hey don't be cruel. Spartacus says everybody is welcome! Nice avatar btw.

 

[HSNHSN]

Do a thought experiment. An elephant sits on a bike. Does it bounce much?

I really like this post. Even though it works, it's a bit too extreme. I can't quite imagine a bike yet that's capable of holding an elephant without breaking.

 

[meat puppet]

Right. So, for the record, my post was NOT intended as one defending Wiggins, but stating the obvious.

If anything, I think the writing about Sir W is on the wall. "Block letters, about six feet high", as Ben Horne so eloquently put it.

 

[martinvickers]

I really like this post. Even though it works, it's a bit too extreme. I can't quite imagine a bike yet that's capable of holding an elephant without breaking.

True, but it makes the point.

 

[Benotti69]

*facepalm

What did Sean Kelly weigh?

Plenty of GT winners have won PR.

 

[roundabout]

OK, right, still sounds like quackery to me. If weight is good why don't riders get fat for PR? Is there any actual evidence that weight keeps you on the ground when riding on cobbles? I don't think heavy things bounce any less than light things. I'm pretty sure that what you need for cobbles is absolute power, not weight.

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/news/jun05/jun04-2/trenton-pieri_600.jpg

*obligatory*

 

[proffate]

True, but it makes the point.

no, it doesn't make a point. You put an elephant on a bike and send him over the carrefour de l'arbre and the bike explodes into a million pieces.

Bouncing is a property of the hardness and elasticity of an object. A feather doesn't bounce even though it's light. That's because it's soft. On a bike, you bounce less by taking the air out of your tires (reducing hardness) or using suspension (again, making the bike effectively softer). You don't tack weights onto the bike or use heavy metal tubing. In fact, tacking weights onto a bike turns it into an *** hatchet, because it bounces just as much but now it has more weight behind each rebound. I've observed this firsthand with groceries loaded onto the back of my bike.

Conservation of momentum bro. Why do I feel like I'm back in 7th grade physics?

 

[SundayRider]

no, it doesn't make a point. You put an elephant on a bike and send him over the carrefour de l'arbre and the bike explodes into a million pieces.

Bouncing is a property of the hardness and elasticity of an object. A feather doesn't bounce even though it's light. That's because it's soft. On a bike, you bounce less by taking the air out of your tires (reducing hardness) or using suspension (again, making the bike effectively softer). You don't tack weights onto the bike or use heavy metal tubing. In fact, tacking weights onto a bike turns it into an *** hatchet, because it bounces just as much but now it has more weight behind each rebound. I've observed this firsthand with groceries loaded onto the back of my bike.

Conservation of momentum bro. Why do I feel like I'm back in 7th grade physics?

Good post.

 

[Netserk]

no, it doesn't make a point. You put an elephant on a bike and send him over the carrefour de l'arbre and the bike explodes into a million pieces.

Bouncing is a property of the hardness and elasticity of an object. A feather doesn't bounce even though it's light. That's because it's soft. On a bike, you bounce less by taking the air out of your tires (reducing hardness) or using suspension (again, making the bike effectively softer). You don't tack weights onto the bike or use heavy metal tubing. In fact, tacking weights onto a bike turns it into an *** hatchet, because it bounces just as much but now it has more weight behind each rebound. I've observed this firsthand with groceries loaded onto the back of my bike.

Conservation of momentum bro. Why do I feel like I'm back in 7th grade physics?

Are you really trying to tell me that the bikes they ride aren't 15kg in P-R?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Paris Roubaix, with its lack of climbing, is surely best suited for people that can generate high levels of (sustained) absolute power. Since you are mainly on the flats your watts/kg is less important then something like LBL.

Hence someone like Magnus Backstedt can win. It would not surprise me if Sean Kelly was slightly heavier when racing PR then LBL. In fact it just seems like common sense so long as there was not a huge affect on his cardio.

Since most of the time riders are sitting down if you have more weight on the real wheel it will stay in contact with the ground which will result in less power being lost.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong though...

 

[will10]

IMO, bike handling counts for a lot more than 'weight'. Someone remind us how heavy Stybar was when he was glued to Cancellara's wheel last year?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

IMO, bike handling counts for a lot more than 'weight'.

Bike handling and ticker. Wiggo is in short supply on both counts.

 

[veganrob]

no, it doesn't make a point. You put an elephant on a bike and send him over the carrefour de l'arbre and the bike explodes into a million pieces.

Bouncing is a property of the hardness and elasticity of an object. A feather doesn't bounce even though it's light. That's because it's soft. On a bike, you bounce less by taking the air out of your tires (reducing hardness) or using suspension (again, making the bike effectively softer). You don't tack weights onto the bike or use heavy metal tubing. In fact, tacking weights onto a bike turns it into an *** hatchet, because it bounces just as much but now it has more weight behind each rebound. I've observed this firsthand with groceries loaded onto the back of my bike.

Conservation of momentum bro. Why do I feel like I'm back in 7th grade physics?

Not just a good post, a great post.

 

[martinvickers]

no, it doesn't make a point. You put an elephant on a bike and send him over the carrefour de l'arbre and the bike explodes into a million pieces.

Bouncing is a property of the hardness and elasticity of an object. A feather doesn't bounce even though it's light. That's because it's soft. On a bike, you bounce less by taking the air out of your tires (reducing hardness) or using suspension (again, making the bike effectively softer). You don't tack weights onto the bike or use heavy metal tubing. In fact, tacking weights onto a bike turns it into an *** hatchet, because it bounces just as much but now it has more weight behind each rebound. I've observed this firsthand with groceries loaded onto the back of my bike.

Conservation of momentum bro. Why do I feel like I'm back in 7th grade physics?

Sprung Mass, bro.

The larger the ratio of sprung weight to unsprung weight, the less the body and vehicle occupants are affected by bumps, dips, and other surface imperfections such as small bridges.

However, a large sprung weight to unsprung weight ratio can also be deleterious to vehicle control.

That's always been the P-R tradeoff. The 'softer' the suspension, the less the control, but the greater the gain from sprung weight - i.e. the rider.

In short biggish units with big watts but excellent bike handling skills will theoretically be favoured.

That's the reason you don't just tack weights on - not because it doesn't help with the dips, but because it's uncontrolled ('dumb') sprung mass that will be "deletrious to vehicle control".

Whereas a riders big fat a*** is directly controlled by the rider. Which is not to say Jon Brower Minnoch would have been a contender.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

IMO, bike handling counts for a lot more than 'weight'.

Who has argued otherwise?

 

[JimmyFingers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt5h-rnsF6I

This is the reason Wiggins will struggle at P-R