14 weeks to the Marmotte; what can/should I focus on?
Comments
-
Tom Dean wrote:An animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-a-rRlfsUg look at this and listen to the sound from the disc. Not smooth.
Note also the high cadence up around 120bpm. GE is higher at lower cadences though according to the studies, including the one you cited.
And why do you think that he doesn't ride like that when riding at his threshold in a time trial?"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Imposter wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:
And you views on the study cited? Or would you prefer to continue to ignore it? :roll:
Yes, I think this has been mentioned to you already - try to keep up. Efficiency and sustainable power are not the same thing.
OK, so you are simply going to continue to ignore its implications. Thanks for making that clear. :roll:"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
So much aggression!
Can't we just discuss this calmly and nicely, even if we agree to disagree....?!
0 -
erm, he does, that is what is in the video. What do you mean?BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:An animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-a-rRlfsUg look at this and listen to the sound from the disc. Not smooth.
Note also the high cadence up around 120bpm. GE is higher at lower cadences though according to the studies, including the one you cited.
And why do you think that he doesn't ride like that when riding at his threshold in a time trial?0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Imposter wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:
And you views on the study cited? Or would you prefer to continue to ignore it? :roll:
Yes, I think this has been mentioned to you already - try to keep up. Efficiency and sustainable power are not the same thing.
OK, so you are simply going to continue to ignore its implications. Thanks for making that clear. :roll:
Mate - there aren't any 'implications', other than the conclusion that "To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait." Even the authors of the study itself are unable to be any more categoric than 'may'. They might as well have said 'may not'.0 -
Imposter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:
True on the flat, maybe, but going up well known Alpine climbs, it's not hard to work out a rider's w/kg. Any of the top guys riding in the high 5 range for w/kg up a 40 minute climb at the end of a stage will be working pretty close to their maximum, or even at it.
Nobody is saying any different.
You did - you said without access to a pro's power meter you'd have no idea how hard they're working!0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:You did - you said without access to a pro's power meter you'd have no idea how hard they're working!
Indeed. Sustaining 5 or 6 w/kg might be easier for some, or harder for others. What was your point again?0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:twotyred wrote:I don't remember seeing too much smooth pedalling up the Kwaremont last Sunday and Cancellara wasn't exhibiting a lot of souplesse when he was monstering it to the finish.
Was he perchance riding way into the red at these points? What does he look like when riding at or close to his threshold?
I'll just quote you again. What is it? On the limit or at aerobic threshold?it would seem logical to conclude that the almost universally 'smooth' style of pro cyclists when riding at their limits is likely to be one factor that contributes to their success.0 -
Imposter wrote:Mate - there aren't any 'implications', other than the conclusion that "To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait." Even the authors of the study itself are unable to be any more categoric than 'may'. They might as well have said 'may not'.
So, it seems you haven't read the studies I cited. If you had you would have realised that this quote is not taken from the study I asked your views on. :roll:"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:So much aggression!
Can't we just discuss this calmly and nicely, even if we agree to disagree....?!
Clearly some on here are simply trying to argue for the sake of it, or perhaps have some sort of religious-like faith in the idea that pedaling style is of no relevance to any aspect of performance. Whatever, it makes this whole 'debate' rather pointless, and I have rather better things to do with my time. Over and out!"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
So fairly off topic now, must be really useful for the OP
tsk!Rule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.0 -
itboffin wrote:So fairly off topic now, must be really useful for the OP
tsk!
To be fair, the question was answered satisfactorily on page 1 by several posters. Even Bahzob's answer made sense - apart from the pedalling mumbo-jumbo....0 -
...because asking for evidence is just like 'religious-like faith' isn't it? That's your second 'over and out' isn't it? You should be grateful people even bother to engage with someone's imaginary friend...BenderRodriguez wrote:bernithebiker wrote:So much aggression!
Can't we just discuss this calmly and nicely, even if we agree to disagree....?!
Clearly some on here are simply trying to argue for the sake of it, or perhaps have some sort of religious-like faith in the idea that pedaling style is of no relevance to any aspect of performance. Whatever, it makes this whole 'debate' rather pointless, and I have rather better things to do with my time. Over and out!0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
...because asking for evidence is just like 'religious-like faith' isn't it? That's your second 'over and out' isn't it? You should be grateful people even bother to engage with someone's imaginary friend...BenderRodriguez wrote:bernithebiker wrote:So much aggression!
Can't we just discuss this calmly and nicely, even if we agree to disagree....?!
Clearly some on here are simply trying to argue for the sake of it, or perhaps have some sort of religious-like faith in the idea that pedaling style is of no relevance to any aspect of performance. Whatever, it makes this whole 'debate' rather pointless, and I have rather better things to do with my time. Over and out!
Yep, you've successfully driven him off twice with aggressive remarks that don't really advance the debate. Happy?0 -
Are you serious? I have given him the benefit of the doubt up til now, and he has ignored my question. I don't know what I'm supposed to have said this time, but this...
...was my comment (not directed at him) that precipitated BenderRodriguez's previous flounce. Sorry if you think this is too aggressive. I think it's a direct response to what was posted. I admit to a bit of mild sarcasm - the imaginary friend comment is personal I suppose, if you think it is directed at a real person.Tom Dean wrote:
Taking the argument from authority up a level! Bravobahzob wrote:Again it may seem arrogant but I am a science graduate and I know how science works.
-you clearly don't, btw.
So was he driven away by my aggression, or setting up a straw man
and disappearing to avoid criticism, as if this wins him the argument?BenderRodriguez wrote:...or perhaps have some sort of religious-like faith in the idea that pedaling style is of no relevance to any aspect of performance.
Happy? No. It's frustrating.0
