*Spoliers* Tour de France talk *Spoilers*

Rich158

That's exactly what I was trying to say. If you have a better power to weight ratio then it's easier to accelerate, but ultimately it's your ability to tolerate the changes in tempo that determine whether you're a good climber or not. There are also, always exceptions to every rule but they tend to be few and far between.

As for my first point, if it takes you 10 seconds longer to get up to speed in a TT, that can be a huge amount of time, and if you lose 5 secs every time your time dips below say 30mph, that could add up to another 30 secs or so. Therefore I stand by my assertion that acceleration is hugely important in TT'ing, it could cost you nearly a minute over a typical TT course.

I wasn't trying to make a connection between an ability to ride a good TT and an ability to climb well.

DonDaddyD

Rich,

If he can hold 30mph over the TT course - uphill, on a flat, downhill - better than anyone else then it compensates for his lack of accelerating.

I think you pointed out that Contador doesn't loose much speed, if at all any, going uphill.

Accelerating isn't the most important thing in TTing, IMO, it's maintaining speed. If accelerating was the most important thing then Cavendish or another sprinter would win it, always.

TTing is a combination of power and stamina.

I would be surprised if on a flat Contador accelerated faster than Wiggins. But over the course of a TT his (Contador's) average speed probably never dips that much, making him faster over the entire course.

Its a middle race not a sprint or a marathon. Incidentally marathon runners make better middle distance runners than sprinters. I would compare a TT to a middle distance race as oppose to a Sprint or a climb, which could be compared to a marathon.

attica

It's a subtle difference, a TTer is working against the wind, a climber against gravity.
it takes diferent sorts of physiques to get the job done.

I want to believe Bertie is clean, but I struggle to do so I'm afraid.

Rich158

To a certain extent I agree, but what you're not taking into account is that sprinters produce their max power for a short period of time, typically less than a minute, which means they don't do so well at TT's. I agree the ability to ride a good TT relies upon the correct mix of power and stamina, but good acceleration is extremely important. I know from experience, racing both MTB's and road bikes, that any time lost at the start/out of corners etc due to poor acceleration is extremely difficult to make up on the straights.

In terms of Contador, I remember when Armstrong came back from cancer in the late 90's early 2000's, his ability on the hills startled everybody, they just didn't think it was possible to ride like that, hence the accusations regarding doping (and I don't want to open that particular can of worms). I put Contador in that bracket, arguments about doping aside, he has raised the bar again in relation to what it means to be the complete rider. Personally I think Contador is the most complete rider about at the moment, his performance in the TdF hasn't been a complete revelation seeing as he won the Giro and Vuelta last year.

gabriel959

Attica wrote:

It's a subtle difference, a TTer is working against the wind, a climber against gravity.
it takes diferent sorts of physiques to get the job done.

I want to believe Bertie is clean, but I struggle to do so I'm afraid.

The first professional stage he won was in the Tour de Pologne in 2003 and guess what it was? An individual Time Trial.

He has been performing well at these since he was in his late teens and early twenties so not so surprising ... again!

jonginge

Attica wrote:

It's a subtle difference, a TTer is working against the wind, a climber against gravity.
it takes diferent sorts of physiques to get the job done.

I want to believe Bertie is clean, but I struggle to do so I'm afraid.

He has very good power/weight, pretty good sustainable power and a low Cda. However, looking at the splits he caned it (with the tailwind) to the first checkpoint when he got a feel for what his GC rivals were doing; relaxed in the next few km before the climb and then annihilated everyone on it. He then lost buckets of time (as did all the GC guys) to Cancellara (and Ignatiev) on the headwind descent to the finish. Ultimately, pacing and playing to his strengths won him the TT. Did a similar strategy in the Olympic TT but lost a lot on the descents and came fourth.

cjcp

What would be good though, in a sport which really does demand transparency, is if AC was more forthcoming in his responses to the journalists instead of "next question".

cjcp

JonGinge wrote:

Attica wrote:

It's a subtle difference, a TTer is working against the wind, a climber against gravity.
it takes diferent sorts of physiques to get the job done.

I want to believe Bertie is clean, but I struggle to do so I'm afraid.

He has very good power/weight, pretty good sustainable power and a low Cda. However, looking at the splits he caned it (with the tailwind) to the first checkpoint when he got a feel for what his GC rivals were doing;

A big advantage of starting last.

DonDaddyD

Has anyone thought that it may be that Contador's ability to climb has improved the most and not his ability to TT, which may be a natural talent....

cjcp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Contador

Rich158

DonDaddyD wrote:

Has anyone thought that it may be that Contador's ability to climb has improved the most and not his ability to TT, which may be a natural talent....

Potentially, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, and certainly not unprecedented, just look at our boy Wiggo. Not in the same class I know, but who'd have said he'd transform himself to such an extent at this time last year.

jonginge

cjcp wrote:

A big advantage of starting last.

Indeed. I also intermittantly wonder how much advantage is gained from a convey of following cars rather just the one for the DS: on the track there is a slight advantage of having a rider right up behind you due to hideously complicated fluid dynamics. Was wondering the benefit of the wall of air being pushed by multiple close following cars would have... * idle ponder *

cjcp wrote:

What would be good though, in a sport which really does demand transparency, is if AC was more forthcoming in his responses to the journalists instead of "next question".

True, but they were questions imbued with implications that were difficult to answer (eg the Lemond/Vayer 'why were you so quick up verbier' one), even the experts are contradicting themselves on the interpretation*. I wouldn't reveal my VO2 max to my competitors, either


* http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07 ... climb.html and update link

cjcp

JonGinge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

What would be good though, in a sport which really does demand transparency, is if AC was more forthcoming in his responses to the journalists instead of "next question".

True, but they were questions imbued with implications that were difficult to answer (eg the Lemond/Vayer 'why were you so quick up verbier' one), even the experts are contradicting themselves on the interpretation*. I wouldn't reveal my VO2 max to my competitors, either

The questions are not particularly comfortable and nod doubt they beome tiresome for the riders, but I don't think that means that they are difficult to answer if you deal with the issue in the way someone like Wiggins has. Given its form, this is not a sport which, IMO, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. All the more reason for someone like AC to adopt a more open approach.

EDIT: I got no idea on fluid what-was-it-you-said, so I just ignored that.

Eau Rouge

cjcp wrote:

if you deal with the issue in the way someone like Wiggins has.

But thats about more than answering a question or two, thats a whole different take on being a professional cyclist . The very act of joining Garmin vs joining Bruyneel is at the heart of that. The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their reputation regarding transparancy in testing in cycling.

jonginge

cjcp wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

What would be good though, in a sport which really does demand transparency, is if AC was more forthcoming in his responses to the journalists instead of "next question".

True, but they were questions imbued with implications that were difficult to answer (eg the Lemond/Vayer 'why were you so quick up verbier' one), even the experts are contradicting themselves on the interpretation*. I wouldn't reveal my VO2 max to my competitors, either

The questions are not particularly comfortable and nod doubt they beome tiresome for the riders, but I don't think that means that they are difficult to answer if you deal with the issue in the way someone like Wiggins has. Given its form, this is not a sport which, IMO, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. All the more reason for someone like AC to adopt a more open approach.

EDIT: I got no idea on fluid what-was-it-you-said, so I just ignored that.

He could have answered the questions differently, to be sure, and it would have averted some (a lot of) criticism. Proof* that the verbier performance, for example, was reasonable would require power meter data as well as blood values. The bio-passport values could be published, but I'm sure they're being studied by Ms Gripper et al. Not sure any of the Astana boys were using powermeters though (LA maybe?)

http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/ ... -pas-22537
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07 ... o2max.html
The above articles and comments are pretty interesting.

* For a given value of proof

shoulder_of_orion

JonGinge wrote:

* http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07 ... climb.html and update link

Man I just read that and that and the update link (and the comments!) Talk about being blinded by science!

All very interesting, but isn't his conclusion basically that although Lemond and Vayer have struck upon something interesting, that there is NO WAY of saying for sure that AC is doping (with available evidence)? And that in any case, no one is working from the same accurate figures and it is all basically speculation and conjecture? Even the "scientific" bit?

Of course the circumstantial evidence, the VO2 Max, the VAM, the denials, the refusals to discuss or allow analysis do point in one direction... But, I am sure people are making similar points about dear old Bradley and his incredible improvement. His volunteering of blood sample data could just be a massive double bluff.

It's all equally fatuous. Until you have EVIDENCE it is just speculation and conjecture.

jonginge

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

* http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07 ... climb.html and update link

Man I just read that and that and the update link (and the comments!) Talk about being blinded by science!

All very interesting, but isn't his conclusion basically that although Lemond and Vayer have struck upon something interesting, that there is NO WAY of saying for sure that AC is doping (with available evidence)? And that in any case, no one is working from the same accurate figures and it is all basically speculation and conjecture? Even the "scientific" bit?

Of course the circumstantial evidence, the VO2 Max, the VAM, the denials, the refusals to discuss or allow analysis do point in one direction... But, I am sure people are making similar points about dear old Bradley and his incredible improvement. His volunteering of blood sample data could just be a massive double bluff.

It's all equally fatuous. Until you have EVIDENCE it is just speculation and conjecture.

That seems to be a fair summary

cjcp

JonGinge wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

* http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07 ... climb.html and update link

Man I just read that and that and the update link (and the comments!) Talk about being blinded by science!

All very interesting, but isn't his conclusion basically that although Lemond and Vayer have struck upon something interesting, that there is NO WAY of saying for sure that AC is doping (with available evidence)? And that in any case, no one is working from the same accurate figures and it is all basically speculation and conjecture? Even the "scientific" bit?

Of course the circumstantial evidence, the VO2 Max, the VAM, the denials, the refusals to discuss or allow analysis do point in one direction... But, I am sure people are making similar points about dear old Bradley and his incredible improvement. His volunteering of blood sample data could just be a massive double bluff.

It's all equally fatuous. Until you have EVIDENCE it is just speculation and conjecture.

That seems to be a fair summary

+1. But, I think it's fair to say that the riders/DSs/people involved in the sport are the real cause of the speculation, so it's up to them to change it, assuming they want to.

jonginge

Not sure this has been posted before. Jens Voight update: http://www.saxobanktakingthelead.com/?p=1217

cjcp

Nails. 8)

EDIT: Take note you diving, wimpy pro footballers. :twisted:

Rich158

Hard as 8) 8)

Stone Glider

I suppose this "Spoliers" thread will drift down the listings and disappear now the TdF has ended. I have enjoyed all the commentary, even if it has drooped into the standard cycle racing default status of who's doing what drugs? at the end.

Anyhoo, thanks to DDD for bringing up another interesting topic. BTW I rather liked the misspelling, it lent an air of "continental sophistication" IMO

shoulder_of_orion

Bradley Wiggins interviewed in teh guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... nald-mcrae

DonDaddyD

Stone Glider wrote:

I suppose this "Spoliers" thread will drift down the listings and disappear now the TdF has ended. I have enjoyed all the commentary, even if it has drooped into the standard cycle racing default status of who's doing what drugs? at the end.

Anyhoo, thanks to DDD for bringing up another interesting topic. BTW I rather liked the misspelling, it lent an air of "continental sophistication" IMO

Many thanks for your kind words.

Would you believe that I meant to spell it that way.......

attica

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

Bradley Wiggins interviewed in teh guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... nald-mcrae

Andy Schleck to Radioshack then!

jonginge

Attica wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

Bradley Wiggins interviewed in teh guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... nald-mcrae

Andy Schleck to Radioshack then!

Maybe, or just read the original cyclingnews article like the rest of us...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... shack-team

attica

JonGinge wrote:

Attica wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

Bradley Wiggins interviewed in teh guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... nald-mcrae

Andy Schleck to Radioshack then!

Maybe, or just read the original cyclingnews article like the rest of us...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... shack-team

I was aware of the l'Equipe article, but Twiggo seems to state it as fact rather than conjecture

jonginge

Attica wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Attica wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

Bradley Wiggins interviewed in teh guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... nald-mcrae

Andy Schleck to Radioshack then!

Maybe, or just read the original cyclingnews article like the rest of us...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-sc ... shack-team

I was aware of the l'Equipe article, but Twiggo seems to state it as fact rather than conjecture

Could be. We'll see in september, I guess

attica

Yep, it'd be a shame if he does go, I rather like the team spirit at Saxo. Team RadioLance are going to be an altogether different beast, Andy will have to brush up on his Twittering and get bitchy as well as ride

jonginge

Attica wrote:

Yep, it'd be a shame if he does go, I rather like the team spirit at Saxo. Team RadioLance are going to be an altogether different beast, Andy will have to brush up on his Twittering and get bitchy as well as ride

Yep. Fast track to twittering otherwise the dreaded 'lots to learn' tweet may get dropped (He'd be mad to go, though)