rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Groupsets - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/20672025ba676e8e?hl=en
* Finally some nutritional advice for all RBR's - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e831685b1751ed77?hl=en
* 7% gradient speed for Professional Cyclist? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c87baf5673f2ab1c?hl=en
* US Military finally catches up to RBR - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1934cd61f6a5a51a?hl=en
* spartacus secret sauce - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/257bcf666d554d40?hl=en
* M-S-R 2011: 1) Haussler. 2) Gilbert. 3) Cancellara - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4958336b5cac6c33?hl=en
* Warming up for elite athletes - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1ad5cb395c0f8cd6?hl=en
* VERY HOT VIDEOS - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/efc95019bde4e694?hl=en
* rbr, rbt brain drain - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9b0dcad8bd5132ec?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Groupsets
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/20672025ba676e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 12:08 am
From: Ryan Cousineau
On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
> So what's the verdict on SRAM?
You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech. This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
It's a subtle distinction.
As for SRAM, the people I know who've used it seem to be quietly happy with it. I'm not sure I see a unique selling point for it (unless it's cheap), but that's hardly an indictment.
However, Cyclingnews recently posted a review of SRAM Force, the penultimate group, which they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/sram-force-road-groupset
This may not tell you much about SRAM Force, but it does give us an excuse to explain the subtle art of reading a buff-book tech review and extracting actual data. Follow along as I parse selected quotes...
"While there are still a few key differences, Force is now so close to Red in look, feel and performance that there's almost no reason to move up any higher in the company's range."
-you should buy Rival
"...the 2010 Force levers still offer very natural-feeling ergonomics with independently reach-adjustable brake levers and shift paddles, and longer lever blades for easier braking from the drops."
-braking from the drops has been upgraded from terrible to less terrible.
"As with all SRAM road shifters, spring tensions are reassuringly firm and there's very good tactile feedback but lever feel is still a bit tinny compared to Shimano or Campagnolo, though hardly offensive and easy to get used to."
-spring tension feels excessive. The lever feels like knock-off junk.
"Rear shift performance has been refined slightly over the original Force group, mostly on account of the updated PG-1070 cassette (the PC-1070 chain is unchanged and updates to the rear derailleur are essentially cosmetic). The new PowerGlide shaping reinserts the omitted teeth of the original OpenGlide design but with no perceivable hit in shifting speed or smoothness."
-the novel feature they were so proud of was utter shit in practice. They've abandoned it finally, thank goodness.
"What has improved, however, is the sound quality: even with the same chain design as before, the PG-1070 cassette is noticeably quieter-running and feels a bit silkier under load, thus eliminating a major – and valid – complaint of SRAM critics."
-We didn't mention the atrocious noise in previous reviews. We can't afford to burn potential sponsors with such abandon. Now that they've fixed that show-stopper, we can tell you about it.
"Front shifts on our standard-drive test unit were very good overall but lacking in refinement compared to Campag. Unfortunately for SRAM, that performance gap grows even wider when compared to Shimano and their new fantastically rigid outer rings, which yield the best front shifting in the business hands-down."
-Front shifting is worst in class.
"Both lever feel and overall power have improved over the already-very-good levels thanks to the stiffer and more heavily triangulated upper arm, and both panic stops and decelerations in high-speed descents are handled with competence and confidence. But again, recent advances in Shimano's braking systems put SRAM in catch-up mode.
Weight remains virtually unchanged from the previous generation but the new arms do finally gain proper centring and spring tension adjustments. "
-Braking is not good. On the other hand, the old version was both worse and non-adjustable.
"Arguments between the virtues and vices of the three major component groups aside, this latest Force iteration raises interesting questions for the fate of SRAM's flagship Red package as it offers a superb weight-to-price ratio and excellent overall performance with just a handful of minor areas of improvement. "
-As bad as Force is, Red is just as bad and far more expensive. So it's got that going for it.
"In the meantime, Force buyers will be well served knowing they're getting nearly all of the function and performance of the top dog at a much lower price. But if you're willing to deal with another 100g or so, SRAM's value king Rival group is almost an exact replica of Force in terms of function and around £400 cheaper."
-The Force group serves as a poorly-constructed moron tax. If you're so cheap as to contemplate buying a SRAM group, you'll be wanting to get Rival, which is just as crappy, but is at least priced commensurate with its performance.
(I did some street-price comparisons at Probikekit, and it looks like Force is priced pretty dearly, and Rival somewhat cheaper, but Ultegra is cheaper than Force, and 105 is WAY cheaper than Rival. That may reflect the UK market; it may be less expensive in the US.)
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 12:32 am
From: RicodJour
On Mar 18, 3:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
>
> > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech. This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
>
> It's a subtle distinction.
No, it's not.
Your ability to read between the lines is transcendent. I'm guessing
you're lit-up. ;)
R
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 1:25 am
From: Simply Fred
sam wrote:
> So what's the verdict on SRAM?
Ask Andy.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:15 am
From: sam
In article <2251064d-a018-4d92-9c0d-
cc990a3011aa@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, rcousine@gmail.com
says...
>
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
> > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech. This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
>
> It's a subtle distinction.
>
> As for SRAM, the people I know who've used it seem to be quietly happy with it. I'm not sure I see a unique selling point for it (unless it's cheap), but that's hardly an indictment.
>
>
>
> However, Cyclingnews recently posted a review of SRAM Force, the penultimate group, which they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/sram-force-road-groupset
>
> This may not tell you much about SRAM Force, but it does give us an excuse to explain the subtle art of reading a buff-book tech review and extracting actual data. Follow along as I parse selected quotes...
>
> "While there are still a few key differences, Force is now so close to Red in look, feel and performance that there's almost no reason to move up any higher in the company's range."
>
> -you should buy Rival
>
> "...the 2010 Force levers still offer very natural-feeling ergonomics with independently reach-adjustable brake levers and shift paddles, and longer lever blades for easier braking from the drops."
>
> -braking from the drops has been upgraded from terrible to less terrible.
>
> "As with all SRAM road shifters, spring tensions are reassuringly firm and there's very good tactile feedback but lever feel is still a bit tinny compared to Shimano or Campagnolo, though hardly offensive and easy to get used to."
>
> -spring tension feels excessive. The lever feels like knock-off junk.
>
> "Rear shift performance has been refined slightly over the original Force group, mostly on account of the updated PG-1070 cassette (the PC-1070 chain is unchanged and updates to the rear derailleur are essentially cosmetic). The new PowerGlide shaping reinserts the omitted teeth of the original OpenGlide design but with no
perceivable hit in shifting speed or smoothness."
>
> -the novel feature they were so proud of was utter shit in practice. They've abandoned it finally, thank goodness.
>
> "What has improved, however, is the sound quality: even with the same chain design as before, the PG-1070 cassette is noticeably quieter-running and feels a bit silkier under load, thus eliminating a major ? and valid ? complaint of SRAM critics."
>
> -We didn't mention the atrocious noise in previous reviews. We can't afford to burn potential sponsors with such abandon. Now that they've fixed that show-stopper, we can tell you about it.
>
> "Front shifts on our standard-drive test unit were very good overall but lacking in refinement compared to Campag. Unfortunately for SRAM, that performance gap grows even wider when compared to Shimano and their new fantastically rigid outer rings, which yield the best front shifting in the business hands-down."
>
> -Front shifting is worst in class.
>
> "Both lever feel and overall power have improved over the already-very-good levels thanks to the stiffer and more heavily triangulated upper arm, and both panic stops and decelerations in high-speed descents are handled with competence and confidence. But again, recent advances in Shimano's braking systems put SRAM in catch-up
mode.
>
> Weight remains virtually unchanged from the previous generation but the new arms do finally gain proper centring and spring tension adjustments. "
>
> -Braking is not good. On the other hand, the old version was both worse and non-adjustable.
>
> "Arguments between the virtues and vices of the three major component groups aside, this latest Force iteration raises interesting questions for the fate of SRAM's flagship Red package as it offers a superb weight-to-price ratio and excellent overall performance with just a handful of minor areas of improvement. "
>
> -As bad as Force is, Red is just as bad and far more expensive. So it's got that going for it.
>
> "In the meantime, Force buyers will be well served knowing they're getting nearly all of the function and performance of the top dog at a much lower price. But if you're willing to deal with another 100g or so, SRAM's value king Rival group is almost an exact replica of Force in terms of function and around �400 cheaper."
>
> -The Force group serves as a poorly-constructed moron tax. If you're so cheap as to contemplate buying a SRAM group, you'll be wanting to get Rival, which is just as crappy, but is at least priced commensurate with its performance.
>
> (I did some street-price comparisons at Probikekit, and it looks like Force is priced pretty dearly, and Rival somewhat cheaper, but Ultegra is cheaper than Force, and 105 is WAY cheaper than Rival. That may reflect the UK market; it may be less expensive in the US.)
Awesome. Thanks for the good info.
s
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:36 am
From: "A. Dumas"
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
Ha ha.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:50 am
From: Frederick the Great
In article
<2251064d-a018-4d92-9c0d-cc990a3011aa@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
> > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech.
Almost entirely people trolling each other badly.
> This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
No argument---unless you want one.
> It's a subtle distinction.
I certainly cannot discern the distinction.
--
Old Fritz
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally some nutritional advice for all RBR's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e831685b1751ed77?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 3:43 am
From: Uncle Dave
On Mar 18, 12:31 am, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:38 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Uncle Dave wrote:
> > > > I don't know why nobody else seems to like proper bacon outside the
> > > > UK. They all seem to want to cure it,
>
> > > Bacon, by definition, is cured. Salting is curing.
>
> > I was exaggerating in order to make my point that most other countries
> > process it to death, one way or the other, until it no longer
> > resembles meat...
>
> > UD
>
> Injecting the meat with brine and phosphates (should never happen, but
> is common) is hardly natural. The better bacon and gammon I've had
> without costing an arm and a leg is that sourced from Ulster. The
> standards of animal husbandry I suspect are higher in Ireland than
> Britain and they are not importing mature livestock from low farming
> standards on the continent, which happens much for "British meat".
> The slaughter, hanging and curing process themselves are iimportant,
> but best to start with a healthy animal for the best meat.
>
> So, do you think that perhaps it is poor farming standards and poor
> meat flavour and texture that lead to overprocessing of the meat in
> mainland Europe?
All I can say about that is that while one sees pigs and cows in
fields through the UK, one hardly ever sees them in Germany. Despite
the fact that pig meat - in one guise or another - is a very big part
of the German diet. It all depends where you buy and who you buy
from. Cheap meat you feed to dogs.
UD
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:21 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 3/18/2011 5:43 AM, Uncle Dave wrote:
> All I can say about that is that while one sees pigs and cows in
> fields through the UK, one hardly ever sees them in Germany. Despite
> the fact that pig meat - in one guise or another - is a very big part
> of the German diet. It all depends where you buy and who you buy
> from. Cheap meat you feed to dogs.
Is anyone going to cross the Andouillette threshold?
Fred "Not me" Flintstein
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 7% gradient speed for Professional Cyclist?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c87baf5673f2ab1c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:30 am
From: thirty-six
On Mar 18, 4:05 am, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2:27 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm doing some research for a local new road project that me be
> > inherently risky to cyclists as designed. This project will use mini-
> > roundabouts and force cyclist to "take the lane" as a traffic mitigating
> > and calming measure. The Designer and the US Dept of
> > Transportation list bike speeds as 12-20mph as useable speeds where
> > this can work. All these mini-roundabouts are on level ground, so the
> > 12-20mph is realistic.
>
> > The design I am examining is on a narrow, winding street with a 7%
> > gradient. This is a long grind, I'm an average cyclist and usually do
> > this at about 5-6mph. Some cyclist will go faster, some slower.
>
> > Professional level Peloton racers, singley, go up 7% grades under
> > races conditions at about what speeds, if this can be estimated?
>
> > thanks to all!
>
> 14mph for an average pro for 20 min.
> 16mph for a world class pro for 20 min.
>
> 5.67 watts/kg for a UCI div1/11 pro. For a typical 66kg rider this
> will be 374 watts for a sustainable 20 min effort.
> At 20mph = 8.94 m/s which translates to a vertical ascent speed of .
> 626 m/s. For a 66+7 kg rider plus bike, this will be 447 watts.
> We are a bit short on power at this speed.
> 14mph would be 313 watts which leaves a little over 60 watts for drag
> and RR, doable if the guy is sucking wheel.
What if he's sucking nitroglycerine?
> This is for a 20 minute effort, a world class pro develops 7 watts/kg
> so a 66kg rider develops 460 watts. This would be closer to 16mph.
> Power per kg data via Andy C
> Phil H
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:15 pm
From: Phil H
On Mar 18, 6:30 am, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 4:05 am, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 2:27 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm doing some research for a local new road project that me be
> > > inherently risky to cyclists as designed. This project will use mini-
> > > roundabouts and force cyclist to "take the lane" as a traffic mitigating
> > > and calming measure. The Designer and the US Dept of
> > > Transportation list bike speeds as 12-20mph as useable speeds where
> > > this can work. All these mini-roundabouts are on level ground, so the
> > > 12-20mph is realistic.
>
> > > The design I am examining is on a narrow, winding street with a 7%
> > > gradient. This is a long grind, I'm an average cyclist and usually do
> > > this at about 5-6mph. Some cyclist will go faster, some slower.
>
> > > Professional level Peloton racers, singley, go up 7% grades under
> > > races conditions at about what speeds, if this can be estimated?
>
> > > thanks to all!
>
> > 14mph for an average pro for 20 min.
> > 16mph for a world class pro for 20 min.
>
> > 5.67 watts/kg for a UCI div1/11 pro. For a typical 66kg rider this
> > will be 374 watts for a sustainable 20 min effort.
> > At 20mph = 8.94 m/s which translates to a vertical ascent speed of .
> > 626 m/s. For a 66+7 kg rider plus bike, this will be 447 watts.
> > We are a bit short on power at this speed.
> > 14mph would be 313 watts which leaves a little over 60 watts for drag
> > and RR, doable if the guy is sucking wheel.
>
> What if he's sucking nitroglycerine?
>
>
>
> > This is for a 20 minute effort, a world class pro develops 7 watts/kg
> > so a 66kg rider develops 460 watts. This would be closer to 16mph.
> > Power per kg data via Andy C
> > Phil H- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He'll blow up............. literally.
Phil H
==============================================================================
TOPIC: US Military finally catches up to RBR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1934cd61f6a5a51a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:04 am
From: RicodJour
RBR, The Official Sock Puppet Testing Ground of The US Military ®
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_837153.html
R
RBR Centcom Facilitator
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 10:51 am
From: BLafferty
On 3/18/2011 10:04 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> RBR, The Official Sock Puppet Testing Ground of The US Military ®
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_837153.html
>
> R
> RBR Centcom Facilitator
Now we know where most of you FuckTards come from. LOL!!!
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:56 am
From: tritonrider
On Mar 18, 1:51 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 3/18/2011 10:04 AM, RicodJour wrote:> RBR, The Official Sock Puppet Testing Ground of The US Military ®
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_...
>
> > R
> > RBR Centcom Facilitator
>
> Now we know where most of you FuckTards come from. LOL!!!
That just explains SO much doesn't it? So who do we nominate as having
been prototypes? I'd vote Gummer first, but he's too much of a
caricature for even the Pentagon clowns.
Bill C
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:42 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:6451f801-224f-46fa-985f-0f6423c92edf@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
RBR, The Official Sock Puppet Testing Ground of The US Military ®
::
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_837153.html
Dumbass -
That is sooooooooo high tech. I'll bet that's never been done before!
I am beside myself!
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:25 pm
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 18, 7:42 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6451f801-224f-46fa-985f-0f6423c92edf@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> RBR, The Official Sock Puppet Testing Ground of The US Military
>
> ::http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_...
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That is sooooooooo high tech. I'll bet that's never been done before!
>
> I am beside myself!
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Magilla must be consulting for the govt
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:24 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"
On Mar 18, 10:04 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> RBR, The Official Sock Puppet Testing Ground of The US Military ®
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_...
"At a senate hearing March 1, Centcom commander James N. Mattis said,
"Our enemies operate within cyberspace ..."
Coincidence? I think not ...
http://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=127344&all=1
==============================================================================
TOPIC: spartacus secret sauce
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/257bcf666d554d40?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:36 am
From: Frederick the Great
In article
<d8840a92-9f9f-4640-ad25-5987b433ca72@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Trovato <benn.trovato@hotmail.com> wrote:
--> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:34:09 +0000 (UTC) <--
Two weeks early.
--
Old Fritz
==============================================================================
TOPIC: M-S-R 2011: 1) Haussler. 2) Gilbert. 3) Cancellara
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4958336b5cac6c33?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 12:40 pm
From: bar
Heinrich's revenge ... sprint win from a late 'strongman' breakaway.
Podium might change if Fabian rolls with Gold-Race junk though ...
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:43 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"
"bar" <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf42ba9b-615a-4583-b4ef-b6021f7e6b0b@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Heinrich's revenge ... sprint win from a late 'strongman' breakaway.
> Podium might change if Fabian rolls with Gold-Race junk though ...
Dumbass -
1. Sean Kelly
2. Moreno Argentin
3. <who cares>
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Warming up for elite athletes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1ad5cb395c0f8cd6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:16 pm
From: Chris M
On Mar 15, 7:46 am, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
> Chris Renard wrote:
> > I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> > the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> > mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> > and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> > to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
>
> There will probably never be a definitive answer to this one, the reason
> being that doing what one expects to do in the way of "pre-competition
> warm-up protocol" is as important and maybe more important than the
> actual protocol.
You're only giving me more poor reasons to stop research. Research
determines directions more than some binary fix. I don't need THE
ultimate answer, while searching for it. I gain from any improvement
in that direction.
>
> There have been quite a few studies done of this in areas other than
> bicycling, and the all reached the same conclusion - you can't just
> change what you're used to doing before a competition
That is irrelevant, and misleading. All we really know is that using
an athlete for research while also expecting top results, is risky.
THerefore research should probably be done indpendantly with subjects
who accept this as part of their contribution to an improved
understanding, and perhaps even useable ideas for later stages (of
research, not the final TT).
, or even before a
> training session, without adverse consequences, but you can get _used_
> to doing different things.
Right. One thing we know, that warming up seems to be best
accomplished by replicating the competition effort, some times scaled
down, some times not. Some times intensity or duration patterns
etc...The best traditional way to derive ultimate warmup is to look at
longer competitions to see when you performed best, and you can draw
your expectationd by observing your workload in the hour before you
attacked and dropped Fausto Coppi on the Tour of the Moon, or
whatever.
I already know the quasi-scientific answers. I just want to confirm
that the use of power meters have failed to lead to any real research.
These (above and below) are excuses for using customs rather than
investing in science.
The only real experiment worth performing is
> getting used to one warm-up protocol and using it enough to establish
> how well it works for you, then change and keep the new protocol for
> long enough to get used to it and judge its results.
>
> The one that sticks in my mind is baseball players and swinging a
> heavier bat before they're up at the plate. The research (don't ask me
> how or what research, I don't remember) showed that it makes almost
> everyone hit worse, not better, but the players are all so used to it
> that taking it away just wasn't going to happen because they all
> _thought_ they'd hit worse without it.
>
> -S-
I appreciate your effort, it's not bad advice. I am sure you hear
everyone claim they want to use science, but I'm not joking.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:25 pm
From: Chris M
On Mar 15, 8:23 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:46 am, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris Renard wrote:
> > > I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> > > the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> > > mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> > > and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> > > to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
>
> > There will probably never be a definitive answer to this one, the reason
> > being that doing what one expects to do in the way of "pre-competition
> > warm-up protocol" is as important and maybe more important than the
> > actual protocol.
>
> Substitute believes for expects, and I'd agree with you.
>
> > There have been quite a few studies done of this in areas other than
> > bicycling, and the all reached the same conclusion - you can't just
> > change what you're used to doing before a competition, or even before a
> > training session, without adverse consequences, but you can get _used_
> > to doing different things. The only real experiment worth performing is
> > getting used to one warm-up protocol and using it enough to establish
> > how well it works for you, then change and keep the new protocol for
> > long enough to get used to it and judge its results.
>
> > The one that sticks in my mind is baseball players and swinging a
> > heavier bat before they're up at the plate. The research (don't ask me
> > how or what research, I don't remember) showed that it makes almost
> > everyone hit worse, not better, but the players are all so used to it
> > that taking it away just wasn't going to happen because they all
> > _thought_ they'd hit worse without it.
>
> In this instance thought = believes.
>
> Life is funny like that. If someone believes something strongly
> enough, and they're not an asshole about it, they can frequently get
> other people to believe as well.
>
> I find it curious that the OP mentions he's interested in "warming up
> with precision" and then says the stuff that's probably the most
> important can't be measured precisely. Precision is the wrong word
> and not what he's looking for. If you couch your search in, um,
> imprecise terms your results will be not meaningful.
>
> R
"I find it curious that the OP mentions he's interested in "warming
up
with precision" and then says the stuff that's probably the most
important can't be measured precisely."
I am expecting to use more than just a power meter.
"Precision is the wrong word
and not what he's looking for."
Which word is 'better" than precision? How about precise
specialization? Context-driven? 'really good and exact?"...the good
way depending on....etc.
"If you couch your search in, um,
imprecise terms your results will be not meaningful."
To you perhaps. You just don't understanding the scope of my purposes.
Here is a huge clue. Power is derived from what? Why is power
(metrics) used (by athletes) not merely as a common denominator but
rather an ultimate product? To make it easy, not to make it precise.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 8:38 pm
From: RicodJour
On Mar 18, 8:25 pm, Chris M <chrismcreyno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 8:23 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 10:46 am, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>
> > > Chris Renard wrote:
> > > > I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> > > > the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> > > > mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> > > > and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> > > > to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
>
> > > There will probably never be a definitive answer to this one, the reason
> > > being that doing what one expects to do in the way of "pre-competition
> > > warm-up protocol" is as important and maybe more important than the
> > > actual protocol.
>
> > Substitute believes for expects, and I'd agree with you.
>
> > > There have been quite a few studies done of this in areas other than
> > > bicycling, and the all reached the same conclusion - you can't just
> > > change what you're used to doing before a competition, or even before a
> > > training session, without adverse consequences, but you can get _used_
> > > to doing different things. The only real experiment worth performing is
> > > getting used to one warm-up protocol and using it enough to establish
> > > how well it works for you, then change and keep the new protocol for
> > > long enough to get used to it and judge its results.
>
> > > The one that sticks in my mind is baseball players and swinging a
> > > heavier bat before they're up at the plate. The research (don't ask me
> > > how or what research, I don't remember) showed that it makes almost
> > > everyone hit worse, not better, but the players are all so used to it
> > > that taking it away just wasn't going to happen because they all
> > > _thought_ they'd hit worse without it.
>
> > In this instance thought = believes.
>
> > Life is funny like that. If someone believes something strongly
> > enough, and they're not an asshole about it, they can frequently get
> > other people to believe as well.
>
> > I find it curious that the OP mentions he's interested in "warming up
> > with precision" and then says the stuff that's probably the most
> > important can't be measured precisely. Precision is the wrong word
> > and not what he's looking for. If you couch your search in, um,
> > imprecise terms your results will be not meaningful.
>
> > R
>
> "I find it curious that the OP mentions he's interested in "warming
> up
> with precision" and then says the stuff that's probably the most
> important can't be measured precisely."
>
> I am expecting to use more than just a power meter.
>
> "Precision is the wrong word
> and not what he's looking for."
>
> Which word is 'better" than precision? How about precise
> specialization? Context-driven? 'really good and exact?"...the good
> way depending on....etc.
>
> "If you couch your search in, um,
> imprecise terms your results will be not meaningful."
>
> To you perhaps. You just don't understanding the scope of my purposes.
> Here is a huge clue. Power is derived from what? Why is power
> (metrics) used (by athletes) not merely as a common denominator but
> rather an ultimate product? To make it easy, not to make it precise.
Effective is the word you are grasping for, along with those straws of
diminishing returns.
You would have made a good Jesuit.
R
==============================================================================
TOPIC: VERY HOT VIDEOS
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/efc95019bde4e694?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:35 pm
From: Hot Hot Hot
Katrina Kaif very bad videos,Bipasa basu hot expose videos with John
Abraham,Mallika sharawath bolly wood sex videos,Bollywood star
Aishwarya rai romantic videos with Abhishek, at http://newexposevideos.co.cc
Due to high sex cantest,I have hidden more details, click on right
side of my website do not tell another person.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: rbr, rbt brain drain
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9b0dcad8bd5132ec?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:39 pm
From: Cicero Venatio
Sheldon Brown is gone, and it is very unlikely that jobst will return.
Many other prominent figures like Jim Bean and others that I can't
remember their names now, just simply threw up their hands and
disappeared. There were experts from lights to bike trailers in the
past, but they are all gone now. It might be a reflection of the
dumbing down of America, and how people now take pride in what they
don't know, and you see that in the posts today. Eventually, I guess
these forums are doomed. It's all so sad, when you think about it.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:58 pm
From: coterock
On Mar 18, 10:39 pm, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sheldon Brown is gone, and it is very unlikely that jobst will return.
> Many other prominent figures like Jim Bean and others that I can't
> remember their names now, just simply threw up their hands and
> disappeared. There were experts from lights to bike trailers in the
> past, but they are all gone now. It might be a reflection of the
> dumbing down of America, and how people now take pride in what they
> don't know, and you see that in the posts today. Eventually, I guess
> these forums are doomed. It's all so sad, when you think about it.
But you are still here. What does that say?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
