Trying to figure out what kind of rider I am
Comments
-
reacher wrote:[
ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb
okgo doesn't need me to defend him, but it's all a bit relative, there's many on these threads putting about armchair theories, but there are a few genuine athletes here too, he's one of them.0 -
VamP wrote:reacher wrote:[
ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb
okgo doesn't need me to defend him, but it's all a bit relative, there's many on these threads putting about armchair theories, but there are a few genuine athletes here too, he's one of them.
Then tell him to keep his nose out of my posts, if I want his opinion il ask him for it, don't hold your breath waiting though0 -
Reacher, your Cavendish post was ill-informed.
I'll be polite and respond to the point; Cavendish is an endurance athlete who can still deliver an enormous aerobic effort at the end of a long stage. As a small, light rider he also expends less energy than his peers over a stage, hence why he doesn't need to put out 1600+ watts like Griepel or Kittel would.
What he and other similar sprinter-types struggle to do is sustain a super-threshold effort as well as pure climbers or chrono men at the end of a stage. A sprinter and a climber might have IDENTICAL FTP and W/Kg but vastly different 30s power or 30 minute power profiles.
Looking back at a lot of your posts you talk a lot about your w/kg but you don't have any power meter. Suggest you start gathering your own data and see how these theories apply to you.0 -
reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.
It isn't hard. You just have to have enough watts to make the numbers work. When going up a meaningful hill, that is all that matters, which is why the twitter sleuths are able to so accurately predict what watts pro's are doing on the big climbs.
Obviously you might find that common physiology of thin people is different to larger people, but what dictates how fast someone goes up a hill surely is w/kg - and the reason its pointless worrying too much about it in the UK is that there are not really many hills to worry about!
I don't see it, you would have mark cavendish and other track riders winning mountain stages if all it took was a bucket of watts, that aside, it's the reason so many people go out to climb toure stages, they want to test themselves on the same climbs, go to the alpe d'huez and theirs people going up their all day long,
What on earth are you talking about?
You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?
ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb
You're thick as muck mate. Enjoy.
Pick any climb and I will bet your mortgage I'll go up it quicker than you.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.
It isn't hard. You just have to have enough watts to make the numbers work. When going up a meaningful hill, that is all that matters, which is why the twitter sleuths are able to so accurately predict what watts pro's are doing on the big climbs.
Obviously you might find that common physiology of thin people is different to larger people, but what dictates how fast someone goes up a hill surely is w/kg - and the reason its pointless worrying too much about it in the UK is that there are not really many hills to worry about!
I don't see it, you would have mark cavendish and other track riders winning mountain stages if all it took was a bucket of watts, that aside, it's the reason so many people go out to climb toure stages, they want to test themselves on the same climbs, go to the alpe d'huez and theirs people going up their all day long,
What on earth are you talking about?
You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?
ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb
:roll:
On at least two levels.0 -
It will be interesting to see if the 4DP idea catches on. It sounds like a good theory, taking all the import metrics into account, but a ‘new’ system needs to prove itself, to be taken seriously.0
-
Stick to golf or football. You're clearly too stupid to understand cycling in any meaningful way.Blog on first season road racing http://www.twhatley.com/0
-
Milemuncher1 wrote:It will be interesting to see if the 4DP idea catches on.
No it won't - it's largely an irrelevance and mainly intended as a marketing hook in order to regain some of the ground they've lost to Zwift and others. There's nothing actually wrong with it, it's just not going to replace FTP, that's all. Absurd to think otherwise..0 -
Imposter wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:It will be interesting to see if the 4DP idea catches on.
No it won't - it's largely an irrelevance and mainly intended as a marketing hook in order to regain some of the ground they've lost to Zwift and others. There's nothing actually wrong with it, it's just not going to replace FTP, that's all. Absurd to think otherwise..
Nailed it.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
reacher wrote:correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ?
BikeRadar gold.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
Given the time I have until next year and what my schedule allows, I feel that 275w will be a fair power goal. The first year of gains was quite rapid, but that's how it goes.
From just a generic health standpoint, I can stand to lose to get from 164 to 155lb no problem. There's no purpose for the fat, only the muscle. That fat isn't helping me make more power, just making me slower up hills. If the 10 lb from 174 to 164 made that much difference up a hill, then I can imagine how 10 more would make. Especially when the next 10 is a higher % loss of the overall.
I could probably stand to gain some training effectiveness from cutting out some drinking as well. That'd probably get the weight AND help the training. A treat once a while is fine. But right now, it's too much. And it's not helping recovery or preparation for workouts.
I bet I could improve the quality of my work a bit by being more responsible with the drinks.
I've come a long way, but I'm still an infant in this game and have plenty of work to do.0 -
okgo wrote:reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.
It isn't hard. You just have to have enough watts to make the numbers work. When going up a meaningful hill, that is all that matters, which is why the twitter sleuths are able to so accurately predict what watts pro's are doing on the big climbs.
Obviously you might find that common physiology of thin people is different to larger people, but what dictates how fast someone goes up a hill surely is w/kg - and the reason its pointless worrying too much about it in the UK is that there are not really many hills to worry about!
I don't see it, you would have mark cavendish and other track riders winning mountain stages if all it took was a bucket of watts, that aside, it's the reason so many people go out to climb toure stages, they want to test themselves on the same climbs, go to the alpe d'huez and theirs people going up their all day long,
What on earth are you talking about?
You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?
ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb
You're thick as muck mate. Enjoy.
Pick any climb and I will bet your mortgage I'll go up it quicker than you.
Put your age, weight and some stats up and I will be quite happy to tell you if your right, makes no differance to me if you can or can't0 -
Age: 26, Weight: 162kg, Some Stats: 66% of Australians will contract skin cancer by the time they are 70.
Can I race too?
Sorry...0 -
reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:okgo wrote:reacher wrote:Where did I say I was confused, all I was pointing out was that it seems to me that some of the bigger guys motor very well on the flat, not so well going upwards regardless of power, seems to me that all watts are not equal, although I'm sure you will say they are.
I don't see it as pointless, you pick the type of stuff you want to compete at and measure accordingly, you might only be interested in climbing or if you want to be a big lump that cruises like a battleship on the flat but climbs like a lardy that's fine as well, it's doing both that's hard.
It isn't hard. You just have to have enough watts to make the numbers work. When going up a meaningful hill, that is all that matters, which is why the twitter sleuths are able to so accurately predict what watts pro's are doing on the big climbs.
Obviously you might find that common physiology of thin people is different to larger people, but what dictates how fast someone goes up a hill surely is w/kg - and the reason its pointless worrying too much about it in the UK is that there are not really many hills to worry about!
I don't see it, you would have mark cavendish and other track riders winning mountain stages if all it took was a bucket of watts, that aside, it's the reason so many people go out to climb toure stages, they want to test themselves on the same climbs, go to the alpe d'huez and theirs people going up their all day long,
What on earth are you talking about?
You don't seem to be very bright, these are remarkably simple concepts to get your head round, but you don't seem to be able to get it?
ok, i see where your coming from, i looked at your previous post, correct me if i'm wrong but are you not the tubby guy who cant climb too good trying to tell us all how to train to climb ? seems to me your not the bright one here or you would have figured out why your so fat and cant climb
You're thick as muck mate. Enjoy.
Pick any climb and I will bet your mortgage I'll go up it quicker than you.
Put your age, weight and some stats up and I will be quite happy to tell you if your right, makes no differance to me if you can or can't
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure as well as being a half decent cat racer, okgo also came a close 2nd in ride london this year. Ok not a 'race'...but a couple of thousand of the early starters do race it. 6000 feet of climbing in the middle so not totally pan flat.0 -
What's a half decent cat racer.0
-
Good question, but I'm still trying to figure out what kind of rider I am ;-)
I did a bit of DD on Reacher and decided it wasn't worth the comeback. I was 1st cat for a few seasons, but do more time trials (and obvs sportives full of shitmunchers) these days
Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
I wouldn't want you to build a house for me if you think there's 6000' of ascent on RideLondon.CookeeeMonster wrote:6000 feet of climbing in the middle so not totally pan flat.
Would someone as strong as okgo get out of the big ring going round that route?2012 Cube Agree GTC0 -
birdie23 wrote:
I wouldn't want you to build a house for me if you think there's 6000' of ascent on RideLondon.CookeeeMonster wrote:6000 feet of climbing in the middle so not totally pan flat.
Would someone as strong as okgo get out of the big ring going round that route?
Doubt many would wanna try a 53 up Leith Hill, probably all big ring apart from that.
Anyway, the point being, its all quite simple stuff, bigger guys can climb alright if they have enough watts, not that hard to grasp.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
birdie23 wrote:
I wouldn't want you to build a house for me if you think there's 6000' of ascent on RideLondon.CookeeeMonster wrote:6000 feet of climbing in the middle so not totally pan flat.
Would someone as strong as okgo get out of the big ring going round that route?
You're right, its nearer 4k0 -
okgo wrote:(and obvs sportives full of shitmunchers) these days
I like the cut of your jib. This guy is awesome.
I think I've found my current "rider type".......shitmuncher. :shock:
A thread about rider type broke out into an ftp and w/kg argument with a possibility of a race breaking out between two posters.......can't get any better than that.
Or...... I'm a dumpster fire cyclist. Just like a dumpster fire, I convert junk food into energy.0 -
okgo wrote:Good question, but I'm still trying to figure out what kind of rider I am ;-)
I did a bit of DD on Reacher and decided it wasn't worth the comeback. I was 1st cat for a few seasons, but do more time trials (and obvs sportives full of shitmunchers) these days
That's ok, i'l give you the answer anyway, if your the guy in the photos on your blog, the answer is no you cant beat me, your not my age, not even close, when you do get to my age lets take a look at what you can do then, for all you know you may well be looking down at a huge fat gut and a pair of legs that struggle to get up a set of stairs and looking forward to a quadruple bypass, let alone ride a bike and reminiscing about what was, or maybe not, when you are my age you can come back on an tell us all how good you are then, its unlikely i will be around to read it though so you will have to make do with beating me up a climb in your mind
btw, that's not to say your not good, in fact your probably very good, but then we all knew that,0 -
People have to be the same age to race against each other?0
-
okgo wrote:Anyway, the point being, its all quite simple stuff, bigger guys can climb alright if they have enough watts, not that hard to grasp.
Amazing the amount of people who struggle to see that there's two sides to the W/kg equation. (though obviously if you can move both sides in the right direction win/win)reacher wrote:okgo wrote:Good question, but I'm still trying to figure out what kind of rider I am ;-)
I did a bit of DD on Reacher and decided it wasn't worth the comeback. I was 1st cat for a few seasons, but do more time trials (and obvs sportives full of shitmunchers) these days
That's ok, i'l give you the answer anyway, if your the guy in the photos on your blog, the answer is no you cant beat me, your not my age, not even close, when you do get to my age lets take a look at what you can do then, for all you know you may well be looking down at a huge fat gut and a pair of legs that struggle to get up a set of stairs and looking forward to a quadruple bypass, let alone ride a bike and reminiscing about what was, or maybe not, when you are my age you can come back on an tell us all how good you are then, its unlikely i will be around to read it though so you will have to make do with beating me up a climb in your mind
btw, that's not to say your not good, in fact your probably very good, but then we all knew that,
Didn't know you meant a race to the grave.2012 Cube Agree GTC0 -
Maybe he can race to grasp the difference between your and you're instead, not sure age applies there.Blog on first season road racing http://www.twhatley.com/0
-
whatleytom wrote:Maybe he can race to grasp the difference between your and you're instead, not sure age applies there.
I thought it, you said it.
I used the search tool on some old posts. Some are downright unreadable. The comma usage is tough as well.
I know some people may post in a hurry from a phone. It makes the grammar and comma usage a pain when switching keyboards on an Apple phone. However, I'd much rather go to a party with the strippers, JFK, and Stalin instead of a party with the strippers JFK, and Stalin.
As for the race, I couldn't find enough info about the other party to be able to place a bet. I know the Cat 1 guy could drop me in a one on one ride pretty quick. If his TT posts in the blog are accurate with the power numbers, that's where my bet is going.
There's two sides to the coin for "what constitutes a strong non-pro rider". I feel we constantly touch this subject when w/kg comes up.
I think the old popular "ftp chart" on the internet is a bit tired. It makes anyone who can throw a dart and hit the chart ANYWHERE think they're a solid rider. The other side to that is that people above the halfway point on that chart think anyone below them is a lard.
All that crap to say.........the cafe' rider isn't really special. The slow Cat amateur is probably more special than they're made out to be. The fast Cat amateur is probably much more special than the slower riders comprehend. Then the pros are up in the stratosphere.
You can kind of get this idea drilled home if you do club rides. The C group is a running pace. The B group is a recovery ride. But suddenly the A group is full on racer boy pace because pretty much ALL of the amateurs pile into that group. The Cat 1 guys all the way down to the lowly newbie wannabe racers like me who feel the B group is too sedate.
I think come early spring, I'll just join the fast boys anyway. I'll tell them up front to just leave me off the back once I've taken my turns and worn myself out and I'll find my way home. But I cannot do the B group any more. It's too damned slow.0 -
What many don't realise is that there is quite a steady ramp in ability IMO until you get to world tour potentially. And this isn't because they're all on gear, but many people can be in a race with pro riders and get round without too much issue if they're a decent amateur.
Of course you'll also find people that have certain attributes that are well well above their overall station. Which will allow them to climb up the categories while not having perhaps the FTP that you might expect. OR vice versa, I know a few riders with a very decent FTP but they don't win races all that often due to the nature of UK race circuits.
I've managed to beat people with 0.5 w/kg better FTP than me because they cannot sprint. That said, they've been able to win races through relentless attacks and eventually cracking everyone that I couldn't for the same reason. Horses for courses. But racing in the UK generally favours people who have a decent engine, who can sprint/have a decent short burst of power.
An elite/1st cat level rider is far closer in ability to a proper pro than 80% of a cycling club would be to them most likely.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
Honest question though for the stronger guys, what's the slope of that steady ramp? :-)
I don't think many people realize how many hours some riders like the Cat 1 guy in this thread, do put in. Or how many years are in those legs at that time input.
I ride a max of 6hrs a week. It's all I can manage. To make up, usually it has some rougher intervals than if I had more time for long base rides. So it is a focuses 6 hours. No time to fart.
But that 6 hours is NOTHING compared to the guy just up the street from me. He easily does 10hrs+ per week. Probably more like 12 hours. Including some intense trainer stuff. No, not a theoretical guy, an actual person I follow.
Makes you feel pretty small in comparison.
I wonder what the cap on this 6 hours or so will be perhaps 3 years from now.0
