login
what is this roadie talking about??? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2006-07-03 1:17 PM in reply to: #472689 |
New user 48  Los Angeles, CA |  Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about???vortmax - 2006-07-03 7:55 AM the bear - 2006-07-03 8:20 AM I may be wrong, but I don't think they do, or can for that matter. I think their TT bikes have a slacker seat-tube angle. nope. Most of the frames are off the shelf TT frames you can go buy. I know this is defineately true for the trek and Cervelo frames. So when you see somone riding a P3C or soloist Carbon, it's the same frame you can buy from a shop. They do make small adjustments, but not to geometry. Although it is true that many (most?) of the TDF teams are riding off-the-shelf TT frames, the UCI rules require that these bikes be set up with a shallower effective seat tube angle (i.e., the position of the saddle relative to the bottom bracket) than what is allowed under the USAT rules. UCI Rule 1.3.013 specifies: "The peak of the saddle shall be a minimum of 5 cm to the rear of a vertical plane passing through the bottom bracket spindle." Compare that with USAT Rule 5.11(c), which specifies: "A vertical line touching the front most point of the saddle may be no more than 5 centimeters in front of and no more than 15 centimeters behind a vertical line passing through the center of the chain wheel axle..." So when the CSC mechanics set up Dave Zabriskie's P3C, they are limited as to how steep they can make his effective seat tube angle because the nose of his saddle has to be at least 5 cm behind the bottom bracket. Meanwhile, the USAT rule allows triathletes using the exact same P3C frame to position their saddle up to 10 cm further forward, thus creating a steeper effective seat tube angle. Whether TDF riders would want a steeper seat tube angle (for power output and aerodynamics) and whether triathletes are better off with a steeper seat tube angle (for power output, aerodynamics, and bike-run transition) I don't know -- but I don't think Bear is too far off the mark when he notes that TDF TT bikes have slacker seat tube angles. The USAT rules allow a bike to be set up with a steeper effective seat tube angle than do the UCI rules. Edited by MCH13 2006-07-03 1:19 PM |
| 2006-07-03 1:35 PM in reply to: #472663 |
Expert 702  Manchester, NH | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? amiine - 2006-07-03 10:39 AMAny person doing any type of generalization is just plain dumb. Jorge, I love ya, but that is just plain funny. I totally agree with what you're saying, but your first sentence is classic! (I'm just mad that that you're going to be able to laugh at me when I don't hit my 700 miles this month!) :-) |
| 2006-07-03 1:39 PM in reply to: #472939 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? immyfish - 2006-07-03 1:35 PM LMAO amiine - 2006-07-03 10:39 AMAny person doing any type of generalization is just plain dumb. Jorge, I love ya, but that is just plain funny. I totally agree with what you're saying, but your first sentence is classic! (I'm just mad that that you're going to be able to laugh at me when I don't hit my 700 miles this month!) :-) |
| 2006-07-03 7:20 PM in reply to: #472941 |
Expert 702 Manchester, NH | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about???
As to the OP. I haven't a clue! Some of those roadies are pretty darn smart, some are wicked fast, and some are both. I don't know where your neighbor falls, but he sounds like kind of a dink. I like the ref to Tom Demerly. I think he probably(definitely) knows what he is talking about! |
| 2006-07-03 7:46 PM in reply to: #473136 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? immyfish - 2006-07-03 7:20 PM After your comment I had to go for a ride just to add miles (pressure) to the challenge
As to the OP. I haven't a clue! Some of those roadies are pretty darn smart, some are wicked fast, and some are both. I don't know where your neighbor falls, but he sounds like kind of a dink. I like the ref to Tom Demerly. I think he probably(definitely) knows what he is talking about! Anyway, while I was riding I thought about this: if the main benefit of a TT bike for triathletes is the geometry and the fit which enables to distribute the leg workload more towards the quads, and not to reduce the CdA, in the case of cyclists when time trialing; wouldn’t that affect their power output by distributing the workload evenly? IOW since using a TT bike allows the rider to reduce the CdA, wouldn’t make sense to also allow him/her to generate the same power output to either ride faster or at the same speed with less energy? (I hope that makes sense) What do you guys think? BTW, I am not trying to be difficult but I really want to figure this out. (I did a search on Google scholar and PubMD and I couldn’t find any related articles) |
| 2006-07-03 8:53 PM in reply to: #472015 |
Expert 1070 North Carolina | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? The easiest way to answer this is that triathletes use a seat angle which conserves their hammies for the run but it does not mean that they are not used. You probably can only tell this on long climbs if you have used both geometries. If it is less than a half ironman I really do not see that you need to save the hammies but you do save time in the aero position. Sounds like he is just wanting to put down the sport and probably cannot swim. If he is putting his time in then I am sure he is a very good rider and is in a position to get the most out of his "cycling" goals!! Just tell him you are not wanting to be a cyclist, you are a triathlete!! |
| 2006-07-03 9:02 PM in reply to: #473136 |
Champion 8903 | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? immyfish - 2006-07-03 8:20 PM
I don't know where your neighbor falls, but he sounds like kind of a dink. LMAO...it's been about 40 years since I heard anyone use that term...what a flashback!
|
| 2006-07-04 12:30 AM in reply to: #473200 |
| Elite 3650 Laurium, MI | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? just a comment from the peanut gallery. You guys do realize you are bashing roadies just as bad as they bash us, and yet are calling them childish. |
| 2006-07-04 9:33 AM in reply to: #473284 |
Elite 3020 Bay Area, CA | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? vortmax - 2006-07-03 10:30 PM just a comment from the peanut gallery. You guys do realize you are bashing roadies just as bad as they bash us, and yet are calling them childish. Nope, this thread is bashing one particular person - much, much nicer. |
| 2006-07-04 10:04 AM in reply to: #472028 |
Lethbridge, Alberta Bronze member | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? trouble - 2006-07-01 10:43 PM ... Since there is tradeoff between aerodynamics and power, the key is to find a postion that allows you to retain as much of your power while at the same time minimizes your drag. Obviously, there's a tradeoff between the two goals (maximum power -vs- minimum drag) that you have to balance. A classic road position does typically allow you to generate more power than a aerodynamic position. However, what he's not mentioning is that while you might be able to generate more power while sitting in a classic road position, you're obviously imposing a significant drag cost as compared to a more aero position. Thus, triathletes and time trialers use a more aerodynamic position that typically gives up a little power but cuts down their drag. The key is to find the position that allows you to maintain the greatest amount of power while it minimizes your drag and at the same time is still comfortable over the distance you're riding. Comfort is important since your areo savings won't do you any good if you've got to sit up every five minutes and stretch your back and because you've still got to run after you get off the bike.... I think this balance between power and aerodynamics is the real issue. Roadies are able to ride in packs and pacelines to compensate for a less aerodynamic position. They can use a more powerful pedaling position then without worrying about the aero drag. Triathletes can't use a draft off anyone so their best compromised position has to give up a little power to reduce the drag. The Tour time trial rider's position is constrained by rules. |
| 2006-07-04 11:37 AM in reply to: #472311 |
Member 39 Ambler, Pa | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? lynda - 2006-07-02 6:39 PM With respect to your question about standing vs sitting while climbing, I remember reading something about it on BT from somebody who had attended a tri clinic. Seems like it had something to do with your height/weight. According to that, I'm a sitter. Alright, I don't have my copy of Friel and Gordo's book handy but I think they cover this in Going Long: Training for Iron-Distance Triathlons. If my memory still works, then the threshold points they mention are 2 lbs per inch of height for standing and 2.3 lbs per inch to sit and spin. IOW - For someone my height (6'5" = 77 inches) and weight (185 lbs), it would be advisable to save energy and spin up the hills. FWIW - Those weight limits are pretty low. Since most of us have a little more upper body than your typical elite cyclist, I would guess that we would all benefit from staying in the saddle. |
| 2006-07-04 7:24 PM in reply to: #472015 |
Regular 408 Rhode Island | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? Never mind taking the guy for a run after the ride, instead, take him for a mile swim in a lake beforehand. If he can't do it, let him know what a loser he is. All triathletes can swim. When he answers that he is a cyclist, not a triathlete, then clearly the answer is that not all triathletes are cyclists, so why compare them? Softball players are not baseball players and vice versa. If you squint real hard, the game might look the same, but they're very different. |
| 2006-07-05 5:51 AM in reply to: #473366 |
Expert 702 Manchester, NH | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? cadreamer - 2006-07-04 10:33 AM vortmax - 2006-07-03 10:30 PM just a comment from the peanut gallery. You guys do realize you are bashing roadies just as bad as they bash us, and yet are calling them childish. Nope, this thread is bashing one particular person - much, much nicer. Exactly, I don't see one comment trashing roadiies in general - just this one guy. The OP stated he was being a jerk about his comments, so we're all supporting the OP. Most of the roadies I know are super-nice. BTW. Dan Empfield has some interesting things to say on the topic: http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/seatangle.html This paragraph in particular caught my eye: "Frankly, the results were groundbreaking, for three reasons. First, these triathletes absolutely blew away their "duathlon" performances in the steeper configuration. The average time it took subjects to complete the 40km/10km "brick" was about 1:50 at 73 degrees of seat angle, and it was a full 5+ minutes faster at 81 degrees." Edited by immyfish 2006-07-05 5:58 AM |
| 2006-07-05 8:32 AM in reply to: #473804 |
| Elite 3650 Laurium, MI | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? There has been general roadie bashing on this thread. Comments like "ask him to go for a run after the ride.: There are also quite a few comments on other threads bashing roadies. I'm just sayin, if you want to bash roadies, just don't get angry when they bash you |
| 2006-07-07 9:12 PM in reply to: #472015 |
Elite 3498 Chicago | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? |
| 2006-07-07 9:41 PM in reply to: #476431 |
| Elite 3650 Laurium, MI | Subject: RE: what is this roadie talking about??? yes |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK