Why can't sprinters climb?

It's mostly because the weight of their huge egos drags them down on long climbs. :p

frenchyge said:

It's mostly because the weight of their huge egos drags them down on long climbs. :p

wrong and wrong! mcewen is 66kg's, lance is 73kg's...I dont think there ego is anything special? I guess you didn't see or read anything about Boonen this year? The guy can climb don't worry about that.

Guys like that can climb shorter hills better than a lot of specialist climbers because they can use there big powerful sprinting engine whereas long gradual climbs knock them out because they are so low below maximum.

I have no doubt boonen could go extremely well in a major tour, often he will beat 80% of the riders in smaller tours just because of TT ability and his sprint bonuses.

Do you realise that most pro riders have come from a track background, they learn to sprint on the track and learn how to control the bike. Maybe not a lot of americans but ALL good australian riders and nearly ALL good euro's are trackies better suited to the road. THEY CAN ALL SPRINT!!!

Forgot one thing! A guy called valverde

How about Luarent Jalabert <sp>.

dm69 said:

Forgot one thing! A guy called valverde

jsull14 said:

I am still new to cycling, but I wonder why top sprinters (McEwen, Boonen, etc.) can’t climb very well. They seem to be very powerful riders. Is climbing something you are born with? (Just like being able to run fast is something you are born with)

Could these sprinters train a different way and become good climbers?

Basically, sprinters are born with a higher percentage of the fast twitch fibers that allow them to go exceptionally fast. This means they have a relatively lower percentage of the slower fibers that would help them endure moderate power requirements for relatively long periods, like more than 10 minutes.

Note that some sprinters are able to train to become better adapted to climbing and still retain some sprint, like Valverde, and some riders like Bettini are able to climb fairly well and still sprint really well. Bettini has exceptional talent and excellent coaching/training advice.

I guess most sprinters are as they are due to the way they train - specifically for sprinting.
I did find myself that climbing in smaller gears didn't do much for my speed on the flat although it did do heaps for my fitness. I've always maintained that climbing is definitely the best way to get really fit and I find it more demanding than sprinting.
Still, there have been times when my speed on the flat was not so good while my climbing was more impressive.
The way to climb, of course, is to find very long, steep country roads that force you out of the seat for long periods in smallish gears. Pure sprinters can't do this as they're used to hauling bigger gears at fast speeds and use different muscle fibres.
Lucien Van Impe had some interesting comments with regard to all of this.

WarrenG said:

Basically, sprinters are born with a higher percentage of the fast twitch fibers that allow them to go exceptionally fast. This means they have a relatively lower percentage of the slower fibers that would help them endure moderate power requirements for relatively long periods, like more than 10 minutes.

Note that some sprinters are able to train to become better adapted to climbing and still retain some sprint, like Valverde, and some riders like Bettini are able to climb fairly well and still sprint really well. Bettini has exceptional talent and excellent coaching/training advice.

Also sprinters often don't focus on the objective of an overall Tour victory like Lance does. What they seek is stage wins in the sprints and couldn't give a hoot about getting up Alpe D' Huez in the first grouping.
Likewise there are climbers who are more interested in the King Of The Mountains trophy than overall TDF victory.
Sometimes you have pure climbers such as Van Impe or Pantani who also do well in the overall tour. But Virenque tends to be happy enough just taking the Mountains stage.
To be an ideal TDF champ you have to be able to sprint a little, climb alsmost as good as a specialist climber, do super fast Time Trials and maintain decent pace on the flats.
Also consider Miguel Indurain was about the only Spaniard who could do fantastic Time Trials - most Spaniards are climbers.

jsull14 said:

[font=Times New Roman]I am still new to cycling, but I wonder why top sprinters (McEwen, Boonen, etc.) can’t climb very well. They seem to be very powerful riders. Is climbing something you are born with? (Just like being able to run fast is something you are born with)[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Could these sprinters train a different way and become good climbers?[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Thanks[/font]

Hi

On a related theme, does it necessarily follow that because you are a good climber, you won't be a good sprinter? I have always been able to climb pretty good. However, due to a recent additon to the family, I am probably not going to be able to devote as much time to cycling as I have previously. My plan is to concentrate on the track and work towards becoming a better sprinter though I probably shan't concentrate exclusively on the pure sprint events. My theory is that although I probably need to be more consistent in my training, I won't need to devote quite as much time to training because I will be able to reduce the l.s.d stuff that seems to be required for road racing. Sound theory or not? Am I deluding myself that it is possible for me to improve my sprinting to any worthwhile degree?

Cheers

SlimMiddleton said:

I will be able to reduce the l.s.d stuff that seems to be required for road racing. Sound theory or not? Cheers

Those LSd miles are not nearly as important as tradition makes them seem, with a good training plan you can stay competitive on the road. Certainly makes more sense than changing your focus.

whoawhoa said:

Those LSd miles are not nearly as important as tradition makes them seem, with a good training plan you can stay competitive on the road. Certainly makes more sense than changing your focus.

Well that is certainly the kind of thing that I like to hear. I am still quite keen to have a good crack of the whip this year on the track however and certainly the stuff I have read about training for track endurance events (I guess above 1000m) seems to advocate a more traditional lsd training type. Can you give me a broad idea of the type of thing you are talking about? Without debating the merits of including a weights programme, the track (sprint) focus has some appeal because I have easy gym access at lunchtimes.

Thanks

WarrenG said:

Note that some sprinters are able to train to become better adapted to climbing and still retain some sprint, like Valverde, and some riders like Bettini are able to climb fairly well and still sprint really well. Bettini has exceptional talent and excellent coaching/training advice.

Both those guys have the advantage of being quite small and light to start with so they really shouldn't be held out as an example of what training could do for the typical Crit King. Bettini is ~124 lb and Valverde ~134. Cunego is another good small bunch sprinter and he's about 130-132 lb this year. Hardly the typical sprinter body types.

mises said:

Both those guys have the advantage of being quite small and light to start with so they really shouldn't be held out as an example of what training could do for the typical Crit King. Bettini is ~124 lb and Valverde ~134. Cunego is another good small bunch sprinter and he's about 130-132 lb this year. Hardly the typical sprinter body types.

It's all kind of relative when you look at the relatively smaller size of guys like Pettachi and McEwen who also sprint well. Compare their size to your average US criterium "king".

I've seen some excellent criterium sprinters who are not that big. Gaggioli comes to mind, as do some cat 1's here in NorCal. The smaller guys also have a disadvantage in sprinting, in that they normally can't make as much absolute power as the big guys during sprints, but some manage to overcome this.

A tour sprinter has to be exceptionally fit. Look at all of the racers dropped in MSR where Petacchi stayed in contact with the front of the race.

FWIW, sprinting is paid off by training. But a sprinter to make it to the end of the race in good form must also be good at everything else.

I'd call a successful (beyond 1hr crits) sprinter an all-rounder 'plus'.

SlimMiddleton said:

Well that is certainly the kind of thing that I like to hear. I am still quite keen to have a good crack of the whip this year on the track however and certainly the stuff I have read about training for track endurance events (I guess above 1000m) seems to advocate a more traditional lsd training type. Can you give me a broad idea of the type of thing you are talking about? Without debating the merits of including a weights programme, the track (sprint) focus has some appeal because I have easy gym access at lunchtimes.

Thanks

It's pretty simple, you need to train more intensely, focusing on efforts that will improve threshold and v02max in a relatively short workout. How many hours per week and how many times per week do you have to ride?

whoawhoa said:

It's pretty simple, you need to train more intensely, focusing on efforts that will improve threshold and v02max in a relatively short workout. How many hours per week and how many times per week do you have to ride?

Well I can generally manage an hour most days including rollers and wind trainer (maybe an hour and a half some). It has been pretty tough to get out at weekends but ideally I wouldn't really want to be out too much longer than 2-2.5hrs. I definitely would prefer to focus on more quality/higher intensity sessions - the only concern I have with this approach is to ensure that I don't get too tired - what sort of volumes are you talking about?

Any of the professional riders who are sprint specialists who are supposed to be poor climbers...they will outclimb 95% of us here on this forum.
But at the level at which they compete, they are very poor climbers.
I think Mario Pantani's race weight was 48 kgs or something, he was like a jockey.
I have been led to believe, from what I read and see on TV, that the pure sprinters have fast twitch fibres (already mentioned here) and their power-to-weight ratio is great for sprinting but because they have more muscle than climbers, they are much heavier than the pure climbers.
But I'm only going on what Phil Liggett says, as well as the bike mags...

Aussie Steve said:

Any of the professional riders who are sprint specialists who are supposed to be poor climbers...they will outclimb 95% of us here on this forum.

Like all those 5% grades that go on for miles and aren't even categorized, the peloton stays intact, including all the sprinters (except Quaranta!)...

I'm a sprinter and I am bad at climbing not only because I don't train for it, but because I simply do not enjoy climbing. I also blame it on my weight, 183lbs. Sprinting is fun, it hurts less overall, and it's just so much fun accelerating. I love nailing back an attack from a group.

velomanct said:

I'm a sprinter and I am bad at climbing not only because I don't train for it, but because I simply do not enjoy climbing. I also blame it on my weight, 183lbs. Sprinting is fun, it hurts less overall, and it's just so much fun accelerating. I love nailing back an attack from a group.

I find sprinting as one of those devils you have to overcome to be any good in this sport but definitely a skill I would not miss. I am an ordinary sprinter in the fact that I don't train for it at all and I dont know how to get in the right position and use my power effectively...all up I hate it!

But climbing I find rediculously rewarding and fun, The tension can be felt between riders as you look skywards up an approaching hill, the strongest surge to the front and the weak slip behind you. Its like an elimination event on the track except much slower and better 😄. Even when I get dropped on a hill I still love it!