Total Disillusionment

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
xrayvision said:
So you mean a mountain climber would do better on the cobbles in Flanders?
problem is on the cobbles, NOT ENOUGH rolling resistance, and getting grip going up.

climbers need longer climbs than 1km to let the p/w come to fore.

boonen and cancellara have the right anaerobic p/w combined with traction on the steep bergs sitting in the saddle. good luck to heras trying to fly up a cobbled berg.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Parrulo said:
wait a second, does fearless greg lemond= fabianbot145789?
Oops, you got me there. Well, cycling is so much cleaner now, we all know that.

Pistolero's 'arguments' are non - arguments, when he comes here pointing at the Croix de Fer 2008 I will say ''absolutely spot on Pistolero'', a rider of 80 kiloos is not able to rip the peloton apart there, just like I always had to giggle when Voigt was the pointman for CSC in the mountains; not normal. When you come on with BS like a breakaway in Milan San Remo with 1400 metres to go I say BS.
boonen and cancellara have the right anaerobic p/w combined with traction on the steep bergs sitting in the saddle. good luck to heras trying to fly up a cobbled berg
You need a big bud on the cobbles, wait:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L_Pd_zxZyTU#t=77s

who is there?
;)

Conti for Roubaix.
 
blackcat said:
problem is on the cobbles, NOT ENOUGH rolling resistance, and getting grip going up.

climbers need longer climbs than 1km to let the p/w come to fore.

boonen and cancellara have the right anaerobic p/w combined with traction on the steep bergs sitting in the saddle. good luck to heras trying to fly up a cobbled berg.
Ok, but GL and photo-finish loser Bauer (3x top 20 on the Alpe) were also known to do well on cobbles and they don't necessarily fit that fatboy mold. Stuart O'Grady may not have been a great climber, but is a good 10 kg lighter than Cancellera.

On the other hand, we have all seen what a great climber Hincapie became after all of his wannabe cobble practice.

Dave.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
rhubroma said:
Sparticus is powerhouse, with all the potentiality that chemically enhanced sport affords. Though he's still a powerhouse, ideally suited to the cobbled climbs of Flanders. I mean we're not talking about Alpe d'Huez at 82 kg. Now that would be a sensational performance.
Take Taylor Phinney here for example. Ask everyone could he win P-R in the future? Most would say yes and use his over 80kg weight powerhouse time-trialling expertise as a reason to do so. Then ask the question to the same people could he win Flanders in future or Strade Bianche for example? His weight would at some stage be mentioned as a major deterrent in his chances to do anything of note in both. In a previous post up thread I see it being mentioned that Cancellara must be on some new substance or on a more advanced programme than others. I don't see this as being the case at all. Just look at the level playing field argument that has been debunked on many occasions in the past including by JV himself. Each person's body reacts differently to doping and some are better responders than others. This could just be the case with Cancellara here. His enormous ability along with his body being a greater responder to doping than others just maybe why we see these insane performances.
 
Sep 5, 2011
99
0
0
D-Queued said:
Not.

The coefficient of rolling resistance plays a huge part in speed on cobbles.

Heavier riders are disproportionately disadvantaged.

F = W * Crr

Then, add in the disproportionate disadvantage of climbing where gravity provides a geometric influence based upon weight.

Doing 'well' on the cobble climbs reflects a performance arguably above sensational.

Dave.
Of the +200km route of Flanders, how many kms involved cobble climbs?
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
D-Queued said:
The velodrome sprint?
Wrong race. That one's this weekend.

I think your equation above lacks some additional variables and functions. It's too simple to use only rolling resistance as justification of why one rider might be disproportionately disadvantaged compared to another.

Additional weight in part comes from additional muscle mass, which equates to more power. So to add in continuous tractive force:

F = P/v

So as power increases at the same velocity, traction increases. Or, for two riders gaining the same traction, the more powerful rider will go faster.

The riders also differ in terms of their preparation, physiology, mental state, motivation, etc. all of which add in more variables and functions.

In the end, there are too many variables involved to boil performance down to a simple equation in a race situation.

I think you'll also find that 20% is an overstatement. The distance of cobbled climbs in the Ronde is <10% of race distance.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
just on power weight going uphill.


best sprinters when the road has an incline are

sagan, greipel, steegmans, then cav, then robert forster (did not see that one coming) then Graeme Brown (bet you did not see that coming, no joke.

freire, farrar, boonen, kittel, petacchi, degenkolb, have not seen them kill a sprint when the road tilted up. i would take michael matthews above them. tho i have seen michael rogers, and valverde, and gerrans be right there.
 
blackcat said:
just on power weight going uphill.


best sprinters when the road has an incline are

sagan, greipel, steegmans, then cav, then robert forster (did not see that one coming) then Graeme Brown (bet you did not see that coming, no joke.

freire, farrar, boonen, kittel, petacchi, degenkolb, have not seen them kill a sprint when the road tilted up. i would take michael matthews above them. tho i have seen michael rogers, and valverde, and gerrans be right there.
Allan Davis
 
peterst6906 said:
Wrong race. That one's this weekend.

I think your equation above lacks some additional variables and functions. It's too simple to use only rolling resistance as justification of why one rider might be disproportionately disadvantaged compared to another.

Additional weight in part comes from additional muscle mass, which equates to more power. So to add in continuous tractive force:

F = P/v

So as power increases at the same velocity, traction increases. Or, for two riders gaining the same traction, the more powerful rider will go faster.

The riders also differ in terms of their preparation, physiology, mental state, motivation, etc. all of which add in more variables and functions.

In the end, there are too many variables involved to boil performance down to a simple equation in a race situation.

I think you'll also find that 20% is an overstatement. The distance of cobbled climbs in the Ronde is <10% of race distance.
You are right, it isn't all rolling resistance. Neither hills, wind nor cobbles can compete with drugs.

If we could remove drugs from the equation, as impossible as that may be, anyone that thinks heavier riders have an advantage on rough roads needs to gain a few pounds. Muscle or fat, you choose.

As I noted earlier, when I argue with physics I usually lose. But, a little selectively applied biogenetics can diminish the impact of at least one of Newton's laws.

Dave.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Ferminal said:
Allan Davis
good. forgot him. he would be in the top group. but not the fastest. about where cav is. goss is about third or fourth. think above greipel, i would have steegmans above him tho.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
D-Queued said:
You are right, it isn't all rolling resistance. Neither hills, wind nor cobbles can compete with drugs.

If we could remove drugs from the equation, as impossible as that may be, anyone that thinks heavier riders have an advantage on rough roads needs to gain a few pounds. Muscle or fat, you choose.

As I noted earlier, when I argue with physics I usually lose. But, a little selectively applied biogenetics can diminish the impact of at least one of Newton's laws.

Dave.
Yep, drugs have a big part unfortunately.
 
Jun 21, 2009
297
0
0
Actually you don't need anybody debunking your theories Pistolero. You're doing that perfectly yourself.

Cancellaras "transformation" or is more suspect than anything Sky!
In 08/09 he learned climbing out of nothing
In 10 he won Flanders out of nothing.

That seems to be your first theory.

Theory 2:

Cancellara has been doped for his whole career! He started at Mapei!!!!!


So, why exactly then his double transformation? (according to you). From heavy rider that can't climb to heavy rider that climbs (at least short stuff) and from pure flat pavé rider to Flanders dominator? Can't be the doping, since that's always been there. Again, instead of throwing everything that comes into your mind at him, why not choose one theory. Or at least not 2 that basically contradict themselves... .
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
The fridge in the blue trees said:
Actually you don't need anybody debunking your theories Pistolero. You're doing that perfectly yourself.

Cancellaras "transformation" or is more suspect than anything Sky!
In 08/09 he learned climbing out of nothing
In 10 he won Flanders out of nothing.

That seems to be your first theory.

Theory 2:

Cancellara has been doped for his whole career! He started at Mapei!!!!!


So, why exactly then his double transformation? (according to you). From heavy rider that can't climb to heavy rider that climbs (at least short stuff) and from pure flat pavé rider to Flanders dominator? Can't be the doping, since that's always been there. Again, instead of throwing everything that comes into your mind at him, why not choose one theory. Or at least not 2 that basically contradict themselves... .
It means he upped his program. Any doper is obviously going to use a less sophisticated doping program when they're young because of lack of money and experience.

Trying to win Olympic gold or world gold in your home county is definitely an incentive to up your program. And if you can do that without getting caught, why quit?

- His climbing improved a lot in 2008, an olympic year.
- Cancellara did become much better in Flemish classics in 2010 than in all the years before(was just an outsider at the Flemish classics before that year). Although you can easily say he already had this level in late 2009 during the WC in Switzerland.

Wiggins was already fourth in the 2009 Tour before he joined Sky. In 2012 Armstrong, Contador and Andy Schleck(the 3 persons who finished ahead of him in 2009) weren't present at the Tour. He did improve drastically in the time trials, but again, there are reasons for that. Cancellara crashed out during the Olympic road race and wasn't at his normal level for the Olympic time trial. Tony Martin had a season filled with bad luck and never reached his level of 2011 because of that.

I fail to see why I need to pick one theory. Cancellara's whole career is more suspect than Sky, not his transformation alone. It's not contradictive at all.
 
It's one thing to say that people dominating a sport where all champions in recent history have been major chargers, who work with doping doctors, aren't willing to be open about anti doping, are friends with dopers etc are probably doping.

It's another for a fan (who until a few months ago thought his favorite riders were clean) to decide that he.knows exactly what quantities everyone is doping and at what times.

And funny that they come to the decision that the rider who is doping the most is their least favorite rider, the one they don't like.

Same thing as last year pisti when purito beat Contador on an mtf and you were moaning that it was getting ridiculous and he was going to win every race.

I was impreessed that unlike other fans you eventually accepted your heroes with ties to ibraguen taus or clen positives maybbe doping. But the whole - but they all just dope a little bit whereas the ones I hate dope a lot, justification, is equally ridiculous.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Professional cylists sometimes improve big time depending on whether it's an Olympic year or WC at home. Nature doesn't work that way Hitch.

I think Phil was on an equal dope program in 2011, or at least with very little differences, but he has backed off clearly. That's why I'm discussing Cancellara who's still on the same level as he was in the old days. And as you said in the Cancellara thread you bumped up, he's still as strong as during Fuentes. ;)


Phil had a clean reputation in 2003-2008. Cancellara and Boonen didn't have that. That's why I think they're bigger "criminals" yes. Is that such a weird opinion?

As for Purito, a 33 year old that keeps on improving. Obviously I'm going to be suspicious of that.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
El Pistolero said:
As for Purito, a 33 year old that keeps on improving. Obviously I'm going to be suspicious of that.
Phil and Purito have had a very similar career, getting better at relatively old age, and possible riding clean in their early years. Problem is Gilbert's currently on a program that destroys him for a year, while Purito's does much less damage.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Pentacycle said:
Phil and Purito have had a very similar career, getting better at relatively old age, and possible riding clean in their early years. Problem is Gilbert's currently on a program that destroys him for a year, while Purito's does much less damage.
Phil won his first classic at age 26, his first Monument at age 27. Not at all a very similar career. It's not very odd to win your first Monument at age 27, just look at Paolo Bettini who won his first LBL at age 26.

Phil also podiumed his first Monument at age 25. Purito podiumed his first Monument at Phil's current age... Phil had already won 3 Monuments, a World Championship, 6 classics and 6 Grand Tour stages in 3 different GTs(plus leader jersey in the Tour and Vuelta) by then.

In 2009, when Purito was 30, he had won nothing of note in his career. His biggest win was a stage win in the Vuelta and the KoM jersey(which doesn't say much).

Purito's problem was being a domestique for a large part in his career. Phil was on a small team, but he had a free role for most of his early career.
 
El Pistolero said:
Phil won his first classic at age 26, his first Monument at age 27. Not at all a very similar career. It's not very odd to win your first Monument at age 27, just look at Paolo Bettini.
While I agree that Gilbert's career can't be compared to Purito's, using Bettini as an example is pretty funny in the context of this conversation :p
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Except for Cancellara. When he improved in 2008, at age 27, that was clear proof he upped his doping program.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
hrotha said:
While I agree that Gilbert's career can't be compared to Purito's, using Bettini as an example is pretty funny in the context of this conversation :p
I'm a Bettini fan, but yeah, I'm aware he was doped to the max. :p

Bettini could probably be better compared to Purito:

He was a domestique for Bartoli in his early career, but he had the "luck" that Bartoli was out for quite some time, so he could fill in the void and prove his worth in his absence. Purito was a domestique for Valverde for a longer period of time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY