CORVOS_00020791-011 copy
  • Dave2020

    “We don’t know if she has the road legs, but she’ll definitely have the speed.”

    Isn’t that one and the same thing? It’s all just pedalling, y’know.

    “It wasn’t just a pan-flat sprinters’ race. We really had to work. I’m glad we could get the win.” - Mark Cavendish, taking the Dubai Tour GC, after winter racing on the track.

    http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/niki-terpstra-surprised-beating-bradley-wiggins-qatar-time-trial-156901
    Niki Terpstra - fresh from the six-day circuit. Wiggins didn’t look at all comfortable on his ‘not-a-proper-TT-bike’.

    • Jessi Braverman

      Hi Dave - I think Tiff means she doesn’t know if Jolien has the endurance but she has the top-end speed.

      • Dave2020

        Well, Jolien had ten hours of racing in Qatar, as did Tiff. They finished sixth and seventh on GC.

        Why is riding the World Track Championships going to have any detrimental effect on a rider’s endurance? That’s a bizarre idea. It makes no sense to me. It looks like yet another example of the really odd received ‘wisdom’ that one finds in cycling. Some coaches and riders think that road and track are in some way incompatible! There’s no rhyme nor reason for that. (if you learn how to pedal efficiently)

        Team GB should have been down on their knees, begging Lizzie Armitstead to ride the points race for Britain. We didn’t enter anyone! I was just looking at British Cycling’s new website. You may look in vain for coverage of women’s international road racing. Strange isn’t it? (being almost invisible to your own Federation) Are they out of their tiny minds? (misogynists perhaps, which is the same thing.)

        The 10k Scratch Rainbow Jersey was won by Wild at an average speed of 45 kph. The points race at the Revolution meet was twice that distance and won by Lizzie (from the front!) at 46 kph. BC is staffed by idiots.

        • http://www.cyclingTips.com.au/ Wade Wallace

          Think of strength, speed and endurance as a triangle where the rider always needs to sacrifice one to be good at another. Too much track and the speed benefits, but strength and endurance will suffer: http://cyclingtips.com.au/2009/09/speed-strength-and-endurance/

          • Dave2020

            That’s the strangest pseudo science I’ve ever come across. (sacrifice one to be good at another!!!!!)

            You link to a simplistic analysis, which omits one essential ingredient - biomechanics. If you fail to define which muscles are turning the pedals at specific points in the circle, you really don’t have anything very useful to say about “Speed, Strength and Endurance”.

            “these abilities are very separate and need to be trained separately in order to improve.” Fantastic! Try rewording that as; these abilities are closely related and all dependent on learning the muscle motor patterns necessary for the most efficient transfer of the rider’s power. That’s better.

            “Strength is all about being able to push the pedals against high resistance.” Poppycock! You have gears on a bike. You can CHOOSE what the resistance will be in ANY situation.

            “Power is the . . . . Maximum force for a relatively short amount of time.” No it isn’t. Go back to physics class.

            And anyway, this is all irrelevant to the ridiculous notion that riding a ‘higher’ cadence on the track will somehow mysteriously diminish the endurance that a rider obviously possessed a few weeks previously. You’ve got to be joking?!

            • http://www.cyclingTips.com.au/ Wade Wallace

              I don’t claim to be a sport scientist, but I’m not the one who came up with the Strength/Speed/Endurance triangle. It’s been talked about in training theory for more years than I’ve been riding a bike.

              May I ask what your sports science background is?

              • Dave2020

                “I’m not the one who came up with the Strength/Speed/Endurance triangle.” - I’m relieved to hear that, because you’ll be more open to questioning that odd theory than the authors.

                A couple of quotes from J. K. Galbraith would be apposite here:-

                “The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”

                “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.”

                It’s just human nature and the way the brain deals with decision making - System 1 or System 2. (google it) The first is the quick, emotional response - gut feeling, if you like. The second is the more rational, carefully considered and analytical approach. That’s hard work - people are lazy and reluctant to abandon cherished beliefs.

                My background is:-

                1.) Understanding the laws of physics.

                2.) A sound knowledge of human physiology.

                3.) Asking the right question of a World Champion 49 years ago, and getting the right answer.

                4.) Personal experimentation, to acquire a comprehensive empirical knowledge base.

                I’ve yet to find a professional website that doesn’t contain several howling errors, and they are always founded on some received ‘wisdom’ that nobody can be bothered to question.

                Consider a fundamental principle: Power = Force x Distance Moved, over Time. If we make time a constant, whether it’s one minute or an hour, then it’s easy to understand the alternative ways we can generate the same power, either by using a high force, moving the feet a lesser distance, or by using a lower force and moving the feet further. Cyclists can change gear.

                Runners, rowers and swimmers have very limited choices in that regard. That is why cyclists should ‘naturally’ perform best at a higher cadence than other sports. The beauty of cycling is; raising your optimal cadence by 10 rpm is only a matter of biomechanics/co-ordination/skill training. It’s a zero cost exercise, which improves your leg speed (efficiency) and your power output and your endurance. What’s not to like?

                A fine example of bad science was the 1967 research by Hamley & Thomas. They concluded that the best power output was achieved (for a ‘short’ time) at a ‘slow’ cadence with a high saddle. The experiment was done on a lab bike without using shoe plates. Ergo, garbage in, garbage out. Sadly, because they were believed to be ‘experts’ applying ‘science’ to a problem, the 1.09 x inside leg ‘rule’ is still in use today. In other words, this is a case of garbage in, GOSPEL out!!