Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

[hayneplane]

Weight is important in PR. Pogacar can probably compete because he is a freak, not because weight isn't that important. History shows heavier riders have an advantage and are the ones who compete in this race for the win.
Weight is important due to more grip on the cobbles.

I think bike handling ability is far more important than weight for Paris-Roubaix.

 

[Netserk]

One influences the other.

So when you talk about weight muscle mass, you mean power output?

 

[Peyroteo94]

So when you talk about weight muscle mass, you mean power output?

Again more muscle mass means more power output. This is a silly discussion, I'm sure you agree with me.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I think bike handling ability is far more important than weight for Paris-Roubaix.

I agree but normally classics riders have good bike handling ability.

 

[Netserk]

Again more muscle mass means more power output. This is a silly discussion, I'm sure you agree with me.

When comparing two different riders with the same power output, but where one of them has greater muscle mass and weights more, is the difference in muscles important?

 

[scribers]

Again more muscle mass means more power output. This is a silly discussion, I'm sure you agree with me.

Friction is the factor. This is not a flat race by any typical standard

 

[Peyroteo94]

When comparing two different riders with the same power output, but where one of them has greater muscle mass and weights more, is the difference in muscles important?

No.
However when a rider increases his muscle mass, he will probably increase his power output. For some reason, cobbled classics riders are heavy and we don't see 60 kg ( or less) riders winning PR. Just like in track, sprinters have way bigger quads than "endurance sprinters" like Philipsen, Merlier, etc and this is clearly to improve his absolute watts.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Season still didn't start and they are already thinking about racing for second.
Van Eetvelt says he will race for second.
For Eetvelt, Peloton in general think they are in grupetto when facing Pogacar and he still rememberes Jaen classic where Pogacar was laughing hard after seeing UAE ripping the peloton and Pogacar knew he would win with still 120 km to the finish line.

This disbelief is just notorious

Campeão do UAE Tour desanimado para o duelo com Tadej Pogacar "normalmente tudo o que vejo é a bunda dele, ficarei feliz com o 2º lugar"

Exatamente um ano atrás, Lennert Van Eetvelt (Lotto) ainda era um talento jovem e relativamente desconhecido. No entanto, tudo mudou após sua participação no

girodociclismo.com.br

 

[Red Rick]

No.
However when a rider increases his muscle mass, he will probably increase his power output. For some reason, cobbled classics riders are heavy and we don't see 60 kg ( or less) riders winning PR. Just like in track, sprinters have way bigger quads than "endurance sprinters" like Philipsen, Merlier, etc and this is clearly to improve his absolute watts

The big error here is treating neuromuscular power the same as aerobic power. Neuromuscular is limited by energy that can be stored into the muscles directly, whereas aerobic power is limited to a degree by the cardiovascular system, unlike neuromuscular power.

To my knowledge these processes mostly work with concentration equilibria, so you probably can squeeze a bit more power out of being a bit more muscular, but this is unlikely to be a linear relationship.

Adding muscle would also partially offset itself by getting bigger and thus less aerodynamic. There's a pretty good reason Evenepoel is the best ITTer this decade and it's not because he's a huge dude.

IMO the whole Roubaix and weight debate tends to just get cause and effect wrong. There's no climbs in Roubaix, which means they don't benefit at all from their qualities, and they're not gonna win a sprint or stay away solo. So they just don't target that race.

On the opposite end, Roubaix is the one race that should be the primary target for any rider that's big and not super explosive, so they all target it.

 

[Peyroteo94]

The big error here is treating neuromuscular power the same as aerobic power. Neuromuscular is limited by energy that can be stored into the muscles directly, whereas aerobic power is limited to a degree by the cardiovascular system, unlike neuromuscular power.

To my knowledge these processes mostly work with concentration equilibria, so you probably can squeeze a bit more power out of being a bit more muscular, but this is unlikely to be a linear relationship.

Adding muscle would also partially offset itself by getting bigger and thus less aerodynamic. There's a pretty good reason Evenepoel is the best ITTer this decade and it's not because he's a huge dude.

IMO the whole Roubaix and weight debate tends to just get cause and effect wrong. There's no climbs in Roubaix, which means they don't benefit at all from their qualities, and they're not gonna win a sprint or stay away solo. So they just don't target that race.

On the opposite end, Roubaix is the one race that should be the primary target for any rider that's big and not super explosive, so they all target it.

I agree with almost you wrote however riding PR is easier for heavy riders due to lack of climbing and it is one life opportunity for a win in a monument. In what universe would Hayman or Vansummeren win a monument? Only in Roubaix. Weight matters and will always matter in a flat race like Roubaix.
We can't look to exceptions when we talk about sprints, flat time trials. Remco is the best time triallist on flat roads but in those WC TT he won, it is rare to see under 67/68 kg dudes in the top10. There is a pattern that heavy riders are better in flat TTs (even if their aerodynamics is worse). Remco is a huge outlier and an unique talent.
The same we can say about Cavendish, best sprinter of all times but when we look to his best competition, they were all heavy dudes.
In PR is the same, light riders have more difficulty to get grip on the cobbles and with less power output they struggle a lot more.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I would like to write more about science but I can't do it in English. My English is not good enough (don't know some specific words).

 

[AmRacer]

I would like to write more about science but I can't do it in English. My English is not good enough (don't know some specific words).

Write in your language, we can translate

 

[Peyroteo94]

Write in your language, we can translate

I will not do that. Specially scientical language where translations are (normally) not correct.

 

[AmRacer]

I will not do that. Specially scientical language where translations are (normally) not correct.

In the clinic you can do that?

 

[Divergence]

I would like to write more about science but I can't do it in English. My English is not good enough (don't know some specific words).

So you claim to be some knowledgable guy but you cannot read the language in which most of scientific research is published?

 

[Peyroteo94]

In the clinic you can do that?

It is not about clinic mate. It is a language barrier.
How do I write for example "quanto maior a área de secção transversal do músculo, maior fibras musculares e com isto maior capacidade de produzir força. Claro que existe também uma componente aeróbia associada, o VO2 max implica não só a capacidade de captação, fixação e transporte do O2 mas também a capacidade do músculo em utilizar este mesmo oxigénio para produção de energia". This type of writing is not possible in English (for me).
Sorry guys, I promise I will not write in my native language again.

 

[Peyroteo94]

So you claim to be some knowledgable guy but you cannot read the language in which most of scientific research is published?

No no mate, don't get me wrong. I am not some knowledgable guy at all. I know a few things but nothing extraordinary. It is not difficult to me to read in English but writing is another thing.
But again, don't get me wrong, I think I know more than the normal cycling fan but there are (probably) people here way more knowledgable than me.
I just don't get in some deep conversations about science because normally I can't develop what I am thinking (in this forum).

 

[Divergence]

No no mate, don't get me wrong. I am not some knowledgable guy at all. I know a few things but nothing extraordinary. It is not difficult to me to read in English but writing is another thing.
But again, don't get me wrong, I think a know more than the normal cycling fan but there are (probably) people here way more knowledge than me.
I just don't get in some deep conversations about science because normally I can't develop what I am thinking (in this forum).

In any case, there is such thing as too much muscle when it comes to endurance. Even if someone has a higher threshold they may not be able to sustain that for say 2 hours whereas a guy with a lower threshold may be able to stay close to his limit for more than that. And given that races start being raced earlier and earlier after the start (as opposed to the proverbial letting the break go) this means that the endurance is a huge component. Therefore, one needs to be not to big in order to excel. Of course, a 55kg climber would struggle a bit in PR but Pog is ideally built for cycling.

 

[Peyroteo94]

In any case, there is such thing as too much muscle when it comes to endurance. Even if someone has a higher threshold they may not be able to sustain that for say 2 hours whereas a guy with a lower threshold may be able to stay close to his limit for more than that. And given that races start being raced earlier and earlier after the start (as opposed to the proverbial letting the break go) this means that the endurance is a huge component. Therefore, one needs to be not to big in order to excel. Of course, a 55kg climber would struggle a bit in PR but Pog is ideally built for cycling.

Endurance is vital, period. I had a teacher in university and he was always saying how stupid and dumb is to call road race sprinters "sprinters" because they are endurance riders, they sprint after 180 km. Sprinters are in track, those are using almost and only PCr to sprint.
We put a track sprinter on the road and after 30 km of a hard pace and he is dead.

 

[Divergence]

Endurance is vital, period. I had a teacher in university and he was always saying how stupid and dumb is to call road race sprinters "sprinters" because they are endurance riders, they sprint after 180 km. Sprinters are in track, those are using almost and only PCr to sprint

But do you agree that a big guy in terms of muscle mass is not well suited for endurance sports?

 

[Peyroteo94]

But do you agree that a big guy in terms of muscle mass is not well suited for endurance sports?

Of course.

 

[Divergence]

Of course.

OK, so what you were saying earlier was not quite true, i.e., that increasing muscle mass thus increasing power output is beneficial for PN.

 

[Peyroteo94]

OK, so what you were saying earlier was not quite true, i.e., that increasing muscle mass thus increasing power output is beneficial for PN.

It has to be an optimal increase. I'm pretty sure Pogacar would be better prepared for PR if he got 2 kilos bulkier (muscle mass) but for sure 10 kilos would not be good at all (it is just an example. It is obvious a rider can't gain 10 kilos of muscle in one season).

 

[Divergence]

It has to be an optimal increase. I'm pretty sure Pogacar would be better prepared for PR if he got 2 kilos bulkier (muscle mass) but for sure 10 kilos would not be good at all (it is just an example. It is obvious a rider can't gain 10 kilos of muscle in one season).

It is not that obvious to me that 2kg of muscle would benefit Pog for PR.

 

[Peyroteo94]

It is not that obvious to me that 2kg of muscle would benefit Pog for PR.

I can't agree with you on that.