problem is on the cobbles, NOT ENOUGH rolling resistance, and getting grip going up.xrayvision said:So you mean a mountain climber would do better on the cobbles in Flanders?
Oops, you got me there. Well, cycling is so much cleaner now, we all know that.Parrulo said:wait a second, does fearless greg lemond= fabianbot145789?
You need a big bud on the cobbles, wait: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.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.
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.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.
Of the +200km route of Flanders, how many kms involved cobble climbs?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.
Wrong race. That one's this weekend.D-Queued said:The velodrome sprint?
Allan Davisblackcat 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.
You are right, it isn't all rolling resistance. Neither hills, wind nor cobbles can compete with drugs.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.
Yep, drugs have a big part unfortunately.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.
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.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.
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... .
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.El Pistolero said:As for Purito, a 33 year old that keeps on improving. Obviously I'm going to be suspicious of that.
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.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.
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 conversationEl 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.
I'm a Bettini fan, but yeah, I'm aware he was doped to the max.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