The Pro Road Cycling Thread

I agree that it is Froome's to lose. The guy is incredible. However what I don't know is how the team changes such as losing Uran from team Sky will impact him. All it takes is one bad day of wrecks to completely ruin a GC contender. Sky has done a great job of staying away from the catastrophic wrecks the last two years, but you would have to think that other teams will try to muscle in and force Sky to work harder to keep that position. I'm also curious about how having a GC guy will impact Cav's sprinting. As Sky found out two years ago, you can't have two masters. You can try to win stages (sprinting, TT, TTT, etc) or you can support a GC guy. It is nearly impossible to do both and be successful.

Does Bluemoon normally have a fantasy league for the grand tours? I've participated in a few of them the last couple years and they really make watching so much more enjoyable. Having my wife yelling at the TV in support of a guy she picked up for next to nothing is always great.

As for comparing 2013 TDF to races in the 80s is impossible for me. I'm a small town guy (grew up in a town of 300) so cycling being available to watch other than a couple stages is pretty new (last 5-7 years for me) . So my depth of knowledge in cycling history is pretty much on par with my depth of knowledge of the Premier league. My amount of history just isn't there. I know what I like and who I don't like, but it is based more on recent events than growing up with a family team or anything of the sort. So if I say something that seems a bit naive or hell, even blatantly wrong, don't hesitate to straighten me out. It is impossible to to get me on the defensive unless you are my mother who has almost magical powers in doing so.
 
Hello Pokes, welcome to our thread :) Im pretty much a cycling novice but have learnt loads from the lads on here.

We did a fantasy league on last years TdF and yeah it was fun mate
 
So we will have to do one for the Giro. RCUK was the site that my groups used last year for the Giro and TDF. I liked it.<br /><br />-- Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:24 am --<br /><br />Oh and while it isn't pro, I'm excited that the weather has finally allowed me to get outside and ride the roads the last two weeks. Trainer rides suck. So much better to be out in the wind and hills.
 
Pokes28 said:
I agree that it is Froome's to lose. The guy is incredible. However what I don't know is how the team changes such as losing Uran from team Sky will impact him. All it takes is one bad day of wrecks to completely ruin a GC contender. Sky has done a great job of staying away from the catastrophic wrecks the last two years, but you would have to think that other teams will try to muscle in and force Sky to work harder to keep that position. I'm also curious about how having a GC guy will impact Cav's sprinting. As Sky found out two years ago, you can't have two masters. You can try to win stages (sprinting, TT, TTT, etc) or you can support a GC guy. It is nearly impossible to do both and be successful.

Does Bluemoon normally have a fantasy league for the grand tours? I've participated in a few of them the last couple years and they really make watching so much more enjoyable. Having my wife yelling at the TV in support of a guy she picked up for next to nothing is always great.

As for comparing 2013 TDF to races in the 80s is impossible for me. I'm a small town guy (grew up in a town of 300) so cycling being available to watch other than a couple stages is pretty new (last 5-7 years for me) . So my depth of knowledge in cycling history is pretty much on par with my depth of knowledge of the Premier league. My amount of history just isn't there. I know what I like and who I don't like, but it is based more on recent events than growing up with a family team or anything of the sort. So if I say something that seems a bit naive or hell, even blatantly wrong, don't hesitate to straighten me out. It is impossible to to get me on the defensive unless you are my mother who has almost magical powers in doing so.
Click to expand...

No worries Pokes, you can only judge on what you've seen - we didn't get decent TDF coverage here until Indurain/Armstrong started blowing everyone to bits. My love of Fignon comes from the books I used to buy, most notably, the double tour book that covered every stage of Giro and TDF - it took you right there, amidst the tifosi throwing coins at Fignon when it looked like he'd defeat Moser. Brilliant writing.

Hinault is my all time fave though - the last truly great champ - won the lot; TDF, Giro, Monuments etc etc. He said he didn't target any particular race; he'd just open his garage in February, take out his bike; read his race schedule for the year then go out and annihilate everyone. Every time. If you want to read of one of THE great all time rides, check out Hinault winning Liege Bastogne Liege. Cheers.<br /><br />-- Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:41 pm --<br /><br />
Pokes28 said:
I agree that it is Froome's to lose. The guy is incredible. However what I don't know is how the team changes such as losing Uran from team Sky will impact him. All it takes is one bad day of wrecks to completely ruin a GC contender. Sky has done a great job of staying away from the catastrophic wrecks the last two years, but you would have to think that other teams will try to muscle in and force Sky to work harder to keep that position. I'm also curious about how having a GC guy will impact Cav's sprinting. As Sky found out two years ago, you can't have two masters. You can try to win stages (sprinting, TT, TTT, etc) or you can support a GC guy. It is nearly impossible to do both and be successful.

Does Bluemoon normally have a fantasy league for the grand tours? I've participated in a few of them the last couple years and they really make watching so much more enjoyable. Having my wife yelling at the TV in support of a guy she picked up for next to nothing is always great.

As for comparing 2013 TDF to races in the 80s is impossible for me. I'm a small town guy (grew up in a town of 300) so cycling being available to watch other than a couple stages is pretty new (last 5-7 years for me) . So my depth of knowledge in cycling history is pretty much on par with my depth of knowledge of the Premier league. My amount of history just isn't there. I know what I like and who I don't like, but it is based more on recent events than growing up with a family team or anything of the sort. So if I say something that seems a bit naive or hell, even blatantly wrong, don't hesitate to straighten me out. It is impossible to to get me on the defensive unless you are my mother who has almost magical powers in doing so.
Click to expand...
 
I just did a search on that and came across this link: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sonuma.be/archive/li%C3%A8ge-bastogne-li%C3%A8ge-bernard-hinault-sous-la-neige" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sonuma.be/archive/li%C3%A8ge ... s-la-neige</a> Now I don't speak the language, watching the little bit of riding was incredible. The conditions were insane. Guarantee they would cancel the race/stage instead of riding in near zero visibility conditions. Does bring up a question though. In the video, looking at the cadence of the riders is so different from the cyclists today. They look like they were mashing where as today even going up the great summits you see 90% of guys granny gearing but keeping their turnover high. Was this just a change of philosophy based on efficiency studies or a difference in equipment from then to today? Always curious what causes such a big difference as that.

I've seen some video of Eddie Merckx and he always stood out from the rest because his turnover was so much faster. I stopwatched and he was casually riding at 110 which is where most pro riders are today. But the guys around him were 80-90. As great as he was, could it be that he just simply was more efficient and was way ahead of his time and nobody really knew why?
 
Pokes28 said:
I just did a search on that and came across this link: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sonuma.be/archive/li%C3%A8ge-bastogne-li%C3%A8ge-bernard-hinault-sous-la-neige" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sonuma.be/archive/li%C3%A8ge ... s-la-neige</a> Now I don't speak the language, watching the little bit of riding was incredible. The conditions were insane. Guarantee they would cancel the race/stage instead of riding in near zero visibility conditions. Does bring up a question though. In the video, looking at the cadence of the riders is so different from the cyclists today. They look like they were mashing where as today even going up the great summits you see 90% of guys granny gearing but keeping their turnover high. Was this just a change of philosophy based on efficiency studies or a difference in equipment from then to today? Always curious what causes such a big difference as that.

I've seen some video of Eddie Merckx and he always stood out from the rest because his turnover was so much faster. I stopwatched and he was casually riding at 110 which is where most pro riders are today. But the guys around him were 80-90. As great as he was, could it be that he just simply was more efficient and was way ahead of his time and nobody really knew why?
Click to expand...

I think the idea behind a higher cadence is to utilise the cardiovascular system more so than the muscles. It was used to great effect by the likes of Armstrong in the EPO-era, as advocated by Michele Ferrari. I think his results (well, whatever you want to call them) had a big impact on the way the rest of the peloton rode, and most riders followed suit.

It's worth noting however, that riders like Tony Martin still grind a huge gear and it works well enough for him!
 
Nervous Nedum said:
It's worth noting however, that riders like Tony Martin still grind a huge gear and it works well enough for him!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but not many riders are capable of generating the total power watts that Martin can pull and hold. That guy's pain threshold is off the charts.

As for the why of higher cadence, I'm a tri-athlete so not everything that applies in the triple disciplines holds true in the others, but I've been told many times that faster turnover is more efficient. It is better to be in a lower gear that you can turn over 100-110 as long as it isn't bouncing you off your seat than mashing out 70-75 at the same speeds. I think at least some of that is that it does allow for an easier transition from bike to run if you are already turning over quickly. I now that when I can ride a course with rolling hills versus steep climbs that the transition is much easier.

The hard thing for me is that I live in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains so we have no flat roads. Tr-bike geometry doesn't lend itself to climbing. Kind of like riding a recumbent. Hella fast on flats and does fantastic in wind, but you give up a lot on the hills. Speaking of which, are there rules against riding a recumbent say on a flat TT? I would think that the overall advantage of being so aero would be unstoppable. I know on the Hotter than Hell ride which is 100 miles of flat, that the first several hundred finishers are always on recumbent.

Sorry for pulling this discussion to general cycling and away from the pros. I do find that trying to translate what they are doing to my own experiences really helps my passion for watching the sport.
 
Pokes28 said:
Nervous Nedum said:
It's worth noting however, that riders like Tony Martin still grind a huge gear and it works well enough for him!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but not many riders are capable of generating the total power watts that Martin can pull and hold. That guy's pain threshold is off the charts.

As for the why of higher cadence, I'm a tri-athlete so not everything that applies in the triple disciplines holds true in the others, but I've been told many times that faster turnover is more efficient. It is better to be in a lower gear that you can turn over 100-110 as long as it isn't bouncing you off your seat than mashing out 70-75 at the same speeds. I think at least some of that is that it does allow for an easier transition from bike to run if you are already turning over quickly. I now that when I can ride a course with rolling hills versus steep climbs that the transition is much easier.

The hard thing for me is that I live in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains so we have no flat roads. Tr-bike geometry doesn't lend itself to climbing. Kind of like riding a recumbent. Hella fast on flats and does fantastic in wind, but you give up a lot on the hills. Speaking of which, are there rules against riding a recumbent say on a flat TT? I would think that the overall advantage of being so aero would be unstoppable. I know on the Hotter than Hell ride which is 100 miles of flat, that the first several hundred finishers are always on recumbent.

Sorry for pulling this discussion to general cycling and away from the pros. I do find that trying to translate what they are doing to my own experiences really helps my passion for watching the sport.
Click to expand...

A lot of my tri buddy's also spin at a high cadence, as you say it helps prevent 'jelly legs' when they transition to the run. I'm sure there must have been studies done in regards to efficiency, I'll have a look around and see what's out there.

In regards to recumbent's, I'm pretty sure they are banned in time-trialling. It doesn't surprise me that they are the first to finish on a flat course, their efficiency over a standard road bike is ridiculous.

And don't worry about the discussion, I don't think this forum merits more than one cycling thread!

Edit: http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17546_9221191,00.html

Saw this on Twitter this morning via Inner Ring.
 
Milan-San Remo today folks, Eurosport 1:30. Remember the brutal conditions from last year? Looking forward to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.