Becoming a GC rider

in message <[email hidden]>, bob sullivan

(') said:

Seems like the most consistent GC riders excel at TTing and climbing.
Is it easier for a pure climber to improve at TTing (a la Basso and
Danielson), or is it easier for a natural time trialist to become a
better climber (a la Ullrich and Indurain)?

Pure climbers are typically pretty compact, light people. They have good
strength/weight ratio, sure, but to start with they're small. By
contrast, on the flat some pretty big, strong people can put in awesome
time trial times. If you're a time trialler who is small and light you
may be able to train to be a great climber, but if you're big you won't
manage.

I think Rasmussen is fairly tall, but in order to get light enough to be
able to perform well in the mountains he is obsessive about what he eats
and about what he carries on the bike. That degree of obsession is
beyond most people.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, bob sullivan

(') said:

Seems like the most consistent GC riders excel at TTing and climbing.
Is it easier for a pure climber to improve at TTing (a la Basso and
Danielson), or is it easier for a natural time trialist to become a
better climber (a la Ullrich and Indurain)?

Pure climbers are typically pretty compact, light people. They have good
strength/weight ratio, sure, but to start with they're small. By
contrast, on the flat some pretty big, strong people can put in awesome
time trial times. If you're a time trialler who is small and light you
may be able to train to be a great climber, but if you're big you won't
manage.

I think Rasmussen is fairly tall, but in order to get light enough to be
able to perform well in the mountains he is obsessive about what he eats
and about what he carries on the bike. That degree of obsession is
beyond most people.

Rasumssen is 175cm tall and less than 60kg. He is very slim naturally,
and while he is super strong, I don't think he has the lung capacity to
support much greater power. Even if he did bulk up in an effort to
boost his max power to improve his TT-ing, it would be detrimental to
his climbing and not really an asset to his TT.

Perhaps the optimal would be to be a big-ish barrelchested person like
Bjarne Riis, and go on some kind of diet/training-program to lose bulk,
while maintaing VO2 lung/heart capacity. Kind of like Lance post
cancer.

I guess that means I think a TT person can more easily become a GC
rider than a true climber can.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess that means I think a TT person can more easily become a GC

rider than a true climber can.

Joseph

interesting viewpoint. I was thinking more the opposite actually. I was
thinking about Pantani who couldn't TT worth beans, came in last in the
prologue 98 tdf I think, but did manage to learn to perform adequately
in later TTs. A TT guy can put a few minutes over his competition,
whereas, as we saw, someone can easily lose 10 minutes in the last 10 k
of a mountain stage

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess that means I think a TT person can more easily become a GC

rider than a true climber can.

Joseph

interesting viewpoint. I was thinking more the opposite actually. I was
thinking about Pantani who couldn't TT worth beans, came in last in the
prologue 98 tdf I think, but did manage to learn to perform adequately
in later TTs. A TT guy can put a few minutes over his competition,
whereas, as we saw, someone can easily lose 10 minutes in the last 10 k
of a mountain stage

Indeed, someone has to be able to climb and TT to do well overall. I
just think someone who by nature/body-type is good at TT has a better
chance of becoming also a "good enough" climber than a person who is
good at climbing by nature/body-type can become also good enough at
TT-ing. If you are good at climbing, there isn't much you can do to
become a better TT rider outside of improving technique assume you are
already at optimal fitness. But if you are a good TT rider all you have
to do is figure out some way to lose weight/bulk and you are
automatically a better climber, and still just as good (even a bit
better) at TT.

Joseph

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess that means I think a TT person can more easily become a GC

rider than a true climber can.

interesting viewpoint. I was thinking more the opposite actually. I was
thinking about Pantani who couldn't TT worth beans, came in last in the
prologue 98 tdf I think, but did manage to learn to perform adequately
in later TTs. A TT guy can put a few minutes over his competition,
whereas, as we saw, someone can easily lose 10 minutes in the last 10 k
of a mountain stage

Yup, agree. A TT specialist is worth about six minutes over an average
three week stage race. A climbing specialist can make up that much time
every day in the mountains. To win on GC you don't have to win every
stage, you just have to not lose any stage too badly. Which, for me, is
why Basso is such an exciting rider: he climbs magnificently and now
loses very little time in the time-trials.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

bob sullivan said:

Seems like the most consistent GC riders excel at TTing and climbing.
Is it easier for a pure climber to improve at TTing (a la Basso and
Danielson), or is it easier for a natural time trialist to become a
better climber (a la Ullrich and Indurain)?

I would think it would be better to put a climber in the wind tunnel to
improve his efficiency, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Landis
did it, but, well, that's Landis.

Sonarrat said:

bob sullivan said:

Seems like the most consistent GC riders excel at TTing and climbing.
Is it easier for a pure climber to improve at TTing (a la Basso and
Danielson), or is it easier for a natural time trialist to become a
better climber (a la Ullrich and Indurain)?

I would think it would be better to put a climber in the wind tunnel to
improve his efficiency, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Landis
did it, but, well, that's Landis.

Really hate to do this but I'm going to throw doping into this. Seems
to me that there are a lot of large type riders who TT well climbing
with the much lighter pure climbers and that baffles me. Being a large
individual with, almost no bodyfat,at the time, and having ridden with
my son for years who climbed like a scared cat I can't convince myself
that they are equal.
I don't think that it's training that's blurring the lines between the
body types, I think it's the drugs. Both in the TT and climbing.
Without the drugs I'd take a climber over a TT type any day of the
week because there's a lot more time to be made in the mountains.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sonarrat said:

bob sullivan said:

Seems like the most consistent GC riders excel at TTing and climbing.
Is it easier for a pure climber to improve at TTing (a la Basso and
Danielson), or is it easier for a natural time trialist to become a
better climber (a la Ullrich and Indurain)?

I would think it would be better to put a climber in the wind tunnel to
improve his efficiency, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Landis
did it, but, well, that's Landis.

I suspect our view is distorted by 7 years of Armstrong, and the other
recent example of Indurain.

In fact, it seems to be a pretty consistent situation that except for
the really dominant tour riders, a Tour winner is either a great time
trialler who can survive the mountains (Indurain) or a great climber who
can limit losses in the TTs.

The distinction is largely moot except for noting what a racer was best
at before he won the Tour. After winning the Tour, they're rarely known
as mountain or TT specialists, but by the more noble title of GC rider.

Maybe Pantani is an exception? I'm sure Benjo will refute everything
here.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sonarrat said:

bob sullivan said:

Seems like the most consistent GC riders excel at TTing and climbing.
Is it easier for a pure climber to improve at TTing (a la Basso and
Danielson), or is it easier for a natural time trialist to become a
better climber (a la Ullrich and Indurain)?

I would think it would be better to put a climber in the wind tunnel to
improve his efficiency, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Landis
did it, but, well, that's Landis.

I suspect our view is distorted by 7 years of Armstrong, and the other
recent example of Indurain.

In fact, it seems to be a pretty consistent situation that except for
the really dominant tour riders, a Tour winner is either a great time
trialler who can survive the mountains (Indurain) or a great climber who
can limit losses in the TTs.

The distinction is largely moot except for noting what a racer was best
at before he won the Tour. After winning the Tour, they're rarely known
as mountain or TT specialists, but by the more noble title of GC rider.

Maybe Pantani is an exception? I'm sure Benjo will refute everything
here.

Pantani is no exception. He was a poor time-trialist who just got
lucky. The year he won, a) several prominent riders were ejected
because of the Festina affair, and b) the only real contender left
(Ullrich) let himself get cracked by a climbing specialist. Pantani was
a great rider yes, but great Tour winner, no.

From what I understand, LeMond was a fine all-around rider who had good
placings in all of the major classics, with podiums in races as diverse
as Milan-San Remo, LBL and Zurich plus a 4th in Paris-Roubaix, as well
as winning the World Championships twice. So he really had more in
common with Lance pre-cancer than post-cancer.

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Really hate to do this but I'm going to throw doping into this. Seems
to me that there are a lot of large type riders who TT well climbing
with the much lighter pure climbers and that baffles me. Being a large
individual with, almost no bodyfat,at the time, and having ridden with
my son for years who climbed like a scared cat I can't convince myself
that they are equal.
I don't think that it's training that's blurring the lines between the
body types, I think it's the drugs. Both in the TT and climbing.
Without the drugs I'd take a climber over a TT type any day of the
week because there's a lot more time to be made in the mountains.
Bill C

I wish you didn't mention drugs...it's awful enough how much it is
contorting the sport, but I believe drugs are the exception, not the
rule...you can't seriously compare your climbing ability to your
sons...if you do, then why don't you compare your endurance as well ?
I'll suspect yours is quite a bit better without any doping.

in 524004 20060820 052920 Sonarrat said:

Pantani is no exception. He was a poor time-trialist who just got
lucky. The year he won, a) several prominent riders were ejected
because of the Festina affair, and b) the only real contender left
(Ullrich) let himself get cracked by a climbing specialist.

Actually, Ullrich was "cracked" by the appalling weather on the Deux-Alpes
stage, as were a few others.

Bob Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, Ullrich was "cracked" by the appalling weather on the Deux-Alpes

stage, as were a few others.

ulrich was a fair weather rider who let himself go in the off season.
talented, but without the heart or love of the bike. the appalling
weather you refer to was the same for everyone there- those that
trained in similar circumstances knew how to deal with it

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Really hate to do this but I'm going to throw doping into this. Seems
to me that there are a lot of large type riders who TT well climbing
with the much lighter pure climbers and that baffles me. Being a large
individual with, almost no bodyfat,at the time, and having ridden with
my son for years who climbed like a scared cat I can't convince myself
that they are equal.
I don't think that it's training that's blurring the lines between the
body types, I think it's the drugs. Both in the TT and climbing.
Without the drugs I'd take a climber over a TT type any day of the
week because there's a lot more time to be made in the mountains.
Bill C

I wish you didn't mention drugs...it's awful enough how much it is
contorting the sport, but I believe drugs are the exception, not the
rule...you can't seriously compare your climbing ability to your
sons...if you do, then why don't you compare your endurance as well ?
I'll suspect yours is quite a bit better without any doping.

OK let's compare Hincappie, who is large for a cyclist, all of a
sudden last year being able to climb up HC climbs with the climbers.
If you believe that 30 or 40 lbs, even if it is muscle and bone, extra
doesn't matter on an 18% grade I've got some fine midwestern beachland
I want to talk to you about. When people who have not dramatically
changed their body, all of a sudden, have totally different abilities
than they ever had, anyone reasonable has to ask some serious
questions.
Elephants don't fly without help.
Just saying, ya know.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

>
Really hate to do this but I'm going to throw doping into this. Seems
to me that there are a lot of large type riders who TT well climbing
with the much lighter pure climbers and that baffles me. Being a large
individual with, almost no bodyfat,at the time, and having ridden with
my son for years who climbed like a scared cat I can't convince myself
that they are equal.
I don't think that it's training that's blurring the lines between the
body types, I think it's the drugs. Both in the TT and climbing.
Without the drugs I'd take a climber over a TT type any day of the
week because there's a lot more time to be made in the mountains.
Bill C

I wish you didn't mention drugs...it's awful enough how much it is
contorting the sport, but I believe drugs are the exception, not the
rule...you can't seriously compare your climbing ability to your
sons...if you do, then why don't you compare your endurance as well ?
I'll suspect yours is quite a bit better without any doping.

OK let's compare Hincappie, who is large for a cyclist, all of a
sudden last year being able to climb up HC climbs with the climbers.
If you believe that 30 or 40 lbs, even if it is muscle and bone, extra
doesn't matter on an 18% grade I've got some fine midwestern beachland
I want to talk to you about. When people who have not dramatically
changed their body, all of a sudden, have totally different abilities
than they ever had, anyone reasonable has to ask some serious
questions.
Elephants don't fly without help.
Just saying, ya know.
Bill C

Hincapie weighs less than Klöden! Even a big guy like Indurain was
only 80kg, 8kg more than Klöden. People who are near their maximal
attainable fitness have a sustainable power level that cannot be
increased that much. So a climber doesn't have too much room to improve
TT results, no matter what they do. A bigger rider who has a higher
sustainable power can improve their climbing by dropping weight. Hard
to do when it isn't fat we are talking about, but not impossible. And
you don't have to be an extraterrestrial to do it!

Joseph

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

OK let's compare Hincappie, who is large for a cyclist, all of a

sudden last year being able to climb up HC climbs with the climbers.
If you believe that 30 or 40 lbs, even if it is muscle and bone, extra
doesn't matter on an 18% grade I've got some fine midwestern beachland
I want to talk to you about. When people who have not dramatically
changed their body, all of a sudden, have totally different abilities
than they ever had, anyone reasonable has to ask some serious
questions.
Elephants don't fly without help.
Just saying, ya know.
Bill C

wow. Hincappie. I understand what you are saying, yet he was only there
to pace not all the way. what kind of damage would have been done to LA
and disco if he got busted ? do you think they could afford it ? allow
it ? doping always entails a risk of getting caught. further, I think
it's like cigarette smoking, try one puff and you'll likely develop a
habit. if he was doping, he sure did lousy this year- dopings supposed
to help.

I respect your point of view; further, that you provided an example
without mincing words. But, I must admit I didn't think Zulle or Museew
doped either, so I have a hard time dealing with the issue.

Quoted message said:

Hincapie weighs less than Klöden! Even a big guy like Indurain was
only 80kg, 8kg more than Klöden.

dumbass,

at this year's tour kloden was listed as 139 lbs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hincapie weighs less than Klöden! Even a big guy like Indurain was
only 80kg, 8kg more than Klöden.

dumbass,

at this year's tour kloden was listed as 139 lbs.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf06-bmi.png

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hincapie weighs less than Klöden! Even a big guy like Indurain was
only 80kg, 8kg more than Klöden.

dumbass,

at this year's tour kloden was listed as 139 lbs.

Oops. I went by Eurosports list. But that just proves my point, a
bigger guy looses bulk and does well.

Joseph

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

OK let's compare Hincappie, who is large for a cyclist, all of a

sudden last year being able to climb up HC climbs with the climbers.
If you believe that 30 or 40 lbs, even if it is muscle and bone, extra
doesn't matter on an 18% grade I've got some fine midwestern beachland
I want to talk to you about. When people who have not dramatically
changed their body, all of a sudden, have totally different abilities
than they ever had, anyone reasonable has to ask some serious
questions.
Elephants don't fly without help.
Just saying, ya know.
Bill C

wow. Hincappie. I understand what you are saying, yet he was only there
to pace not all the way. what kind of damage would have been done to LA
and disco if he got busted ? do you think they could afford it ? allow
it ? doping always entails a risk of getting caught.

Some would say it's well worth the risk. Some say that they took that risk
and it paid handsomely.