SB Nation User Blog: R Mc

Class chat waiting for the sesh

R Mc — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:26:27 -0000

Ok . . . reading through the responses to the great Tyler Farrar interview . . . Gav's (or someone's) response about hoping the EBH doesn't become a GT-chaser got me wondering about the strange feature of cycling where the least interesting racing gets the most casual fan attention?

Am I correct? Save a snooze-fest with fire-works like Milan-San Remo, is there any Monument that isn't more compelling viewing than most any stage of a Grand Tour? Sure, occasional GT stages will be must re-watch events, and every so-often a classic will be a dud, but in most cases, I'll go for re-watching a classic instead of re-watching a stage of a GT. And the rest of ya'll? what say ye?

It would be a poll, but that would take effort.

R Mc — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:16 -0000

Between the back-to-school crunch, the realities of late summer doldrums, however many Grand Tours it is now, and keeping up with local political shenanigans, I've sorta flagged in my interest in pro cycling lately.

But . . . there's one story-line that has been sort of rankling in my noggin; since the last stage of Le Tour Day Frank-Rich. No, wait a second, my internal monologuer tells me that Frank Rich is something altogether different from bike racing, and that however teutonic he might feel on occasion, I meant to type Frank Reich. Whatevah.

Oh yeah: last stage of tour: Tyler Farrar and Garmin get their ev-ill come-uppances at the pedals of Georg hin-cap-a-pied, or something. Except . . . that there was someone notably absent from il treno di lead-y-out-e-oh de Gar-Meen. Can you guess who? Not Julian Dean, although he might as well have been absent. No this wacked-out camper has gotten by on attitude and gonzo for the last several years desptie freaking out every time crunch-time occurs with a regularity almost Danielsonian: of course, I mean Zabriskie, who gets my vote as the most over-rated professional cyclist.

What brings about this polemic? Reading about his less-than-useless escapade yesterday.

But enough of my animosities--who tops your list as the most over-rated cyclist?

Makes me feel a little better . . .

R Mc — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:49:51 -0000

I've watched this kid for a couple of years now--and also race against his dad from time to time: it's a good result and not surprising to those of us who watched the motor turn on last season. Congrats:

http://beta.velonews.com/article/96418/craddock-takes-silver-at-world-junior-tt-championship

Request for the Washington ST PdC branch

R Mc — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:11:09 -0000

Ordinarily, I wouldn't do this, but this is for the guy who provided the west vleteren . . .

What are the decent rides around Bellevue? Advice of any sort could be posted to:

http://www.txbra.org/forum3/index.asp?page=loader&forumID=19

Some thoughts on fandom and power output

R Mc — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:02:25 -0000

Many cycling fans admire the riders who can repeatedly dish out rapid accelerations on a climb; by the same token 'diesel' riders like Menchov and Leipheimer have come in for a fair bit of . . . meh.

What follows is a bit of speculation on the power outputs and physiological realities associated with those rapid accelerations.

Leaving aside Ferrari's quirky VAM calculations, it seems as though it takes around a 5.8 to 6+ watts/kilosgram power output to be competitive on a Tour de France climb. People capable of sustaining that power output are not wide-spread. As an example, Chris Anker Sorensen was drilling it at 390-420watts for his pull at the bottom of the last climb yesterday. Within 3 minutes of his pull his heart-rate was 185. I don't know exactly what his LT heart rate is--but it's safe to say that he was near it or over it. And what happens when guys like Sorensen or Cancellara clearly go anaerobic to pull is an almost inviolable physiological fact: go anaerobic for more than a minute or so . . . and it takes nearly twice that long to recover.

Various estimates place Contador's pace for his attack on that climb in the 415-420 average watt range. (Armstrong's was higher--he just weighs a lot more than Contador).

So? Well, here's where things get interesting: An attack that would open a gap would need to be in the 700-850w range . . . sustained for 10-15 seconds. And then, instead of shutting it down and recovering like a sprinter would . . a climber has to settle back into that 415w power output. Sounds like the sort of thing that should be repeatable over and over, right?

Well, not so much.This is why I think the doping-era has caused problems by creating skewed fan expectations of what sort of spectacle the riders are capable of producing. Comments?

Les veins du tour, or the inevitable hot-i-tude thread

R Mc — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:58:20 -0000

Sparing you I will, the photos of the high-5 nightmare interchange of veins in George Hincapie's left calf. I have it on good authority that Lee-noos left HIgh Road because George wouldn't take him up on the offer of heavily discounted laser surgery . . . (What authority? The sort of authoritay that must be respected. Respect.)

But we--that's the paranormal we that us ph.d's get to use in deep discussions such as this--also know what happens when you put clinically low bodyfat percentages together with serious aerobic activity in the supra-pedal extremities: serious veinage running from the subtly sexy to "has a med. school called you about being the visual aid at their anatomy lesson?"

Discuss and provide visual aids as necessary (or not):

Why not me? Cadel Evans

R Mc — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:37:07 -0000

Our generation's Poulidor or a candidate for glory? [edited in light of Dekker's being thrown under the bus on the way to Monaco.]

Why he will win:

The course favors him. He out-grintas Menchov and can ALMOST hang onto Contador's most lethal mountain attacks. The only problem for Contador is that there aren't that many mountains suited to his style, so advantage to the Diesels. The Team Time Trial is short enough--and early enough in the race--that his team won't be a serious liability. His team, for once, is actually built around him, as opposed to his being the after-thought to Robbie McEwen. With my pollyana glasses on, I'll even assert that Thomas Dekker's exclusion--and his replacement with Wegelius--improves Evans chances in the overall. Removing Dekker removes a rider of questionable dedication and sporadic performances in favor of a consummate professional who--while NOT a Chris Horner--is a solid climby domestique.

Another reason Evans will win: He will be there just waiting to pick up the pieces after the Astana implosion or explosion.

Why He Will Not Win:

The last 10 kilometers of stage 17 of the 2002 Giro d"italia from Corvara to Folgaria. Evans, through no fault of his own, wound up being Mapei's leader due to Stephano Garzelli's positive for Probenecid. Remember--this was 7 years ago: Evans had just crossed over to road racing from a successful MTB career, and he was just supposed to help out Garzelli. But once in rosa, he gave everything he had to become the first Aussie winner of the Giro.

I re-watched this stage today (lotta rain = roller workout). Knowing what to look for, I came away with renewed admiration for Evans. He was clearly suffering like a dog by 15k to go, but he suffered it out for another 5k until he just imploded. Hamilton saw him lose Cioni's wheel and attacked, which opened the door for what turned out to be the winning GC move by Savoldelli. Evans bobbed-and-wove his way up the climb, losing 17 minutes in 10k.

My point: Such a colossal blow-up scars a psyche; it causes one to ask questions at times requiring total commitment. Whether I'm correct in identifying that moment as the ultimate source of the stress, the past couple of tours have provided ample evidence that Evans does not handle the stress of being a podium contender well.

Beyond the personal level--there are still immense questions about whether or not Silence-Lotto--especially the management--have the abilities requisite to bring home a GC victory.

While no one should dis-respect the level of effort and commitment Evans brings to his racing, unless he addresses his mental limiters he will not be getting his flowers on the top step of the podium in Paris.

Driving That Train: Beyond the Engine

R Mc — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:53:08 -0000

I'm gonna learn this story template sooner or later. Anyway, I thought about quoting from REM instead of the Dead, but oh well . . . I've been in a Phish phase, so jam band it is.

The last post was about identifying the real contenders. If you're interested, this one is an invitation to wrap some pixelated type around the psychological characteristics that go into winning a GT.

There seem to be 3 basic strategic approaches to winning a Grand Tour--which I'll label the Merckx/Hinault, Indurain, and Armstrong methods. All 3 methods have worked--but part of the task for a director and contender is to figure out what sort of psychological profile they are working with and adapt to that

Method 1: Merckx/Hinault: never waste an opportunity to inflict harm on your opponents. Definitely the highest physiological stress option, but this strategy has the benefit of reducing your opponents to quaking masses of indecision by the latter stages of a race. Non-GT example: in the finale of the 1981 Paris-Roubaix, HInault runs into a loose dog going through a turn and crashes. After the fastest remount I've ever seen, Hinault chases back--this despite the presence of Moser trying to drive the pace. Within 500m of rejoining the group (with no follow car assistance or anything else). Hinault is back on the front and his pull drops two riders: In sum, the psychological profile for this method: "strategy? My strategy is to pummel you repeatedly, you ok with that?" Riders for whom it does not work: Chiapucci, Valverde, Vinokourov.

Method 2: the Indurain method. I thought about calling this one the Menchov method. It's sort of the rope-a-dope response to the Merckx/Hinault method. In other words, it's all about taking punishment and hanging on until your opponent over-reaches. Of course, as Evans and Leipheimer have learned to their cost, when your opponent over-reaches, you have to shift out of punching-bag mentality long enough to land a blow yourself.

Method 3: Oh crud, I seem to have turned into a Hegelian, since the Armstrong method is sort of a synthesis of the proceeding two, with the addition of a team strategy. Instead of waiting out the opposition the Armstrong (and you have to give Bruyneel credit too) approach is to use your team to dictate when and where the signficant attacks will happen--and save your leader's energy for only THOSE places. After that, you use your team as a bunch of surrogate Hinaults (or picadors, to vary the combat metaphor slightly) to control your opponents--or goad them into making a blunder. Riis and Sastre notably adopted this method last year--gambling that they could wring victory out of just one stage of the tour.

So, did I come close to suggesting what is becoming the most fascinatiing part of Grand Tour racing: the match of psychological abilities with strategic choices?

The 5. Who are they?

R Mc — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:09:18 -0000

Note: this is not an Ursula post. Expect no research. Expect no clear reasoning. Just a lame assertion followed by minimal support an then an invitation to discuss.

Lame Assertion:

The pool of cyclists actually capable of winning a Grand Tour--specifically le Tour--is always very small. Arbitrarily, I'm saying 5. The prime variables in my calculus for determining who is NOT on the list refer to primarily psychological rather than physiological characteristics. [Note: again, this 'calculus' I write of is purely a figment of my imagination--although I plan to package up some bogus test questions and interest profiles as the "McLamore battery" and offer it to Pro-Tour teams sorta like Gil Brandt cooked up scouting packages for the Dallas Cowboys after he got tired of taking baby photos].

more after the click

Part of the problem, then, is that it's never straight-forward about who the GT contenders COULD be. Could Spartacus be a GT contender? It depends on the model of winning a GT he plans to use. Certainly the Sastre model won't work, but the Indurain model might. But does Cancellara have the psychological tools to impose himself on the top of the GC? Survey says yes. So . . . he could be one.

But then there are riders who exist as GT contenders because of some good LT or VO2 max numbers and a need for journalists to turn out copy. Though there are many examples of these riders out there, perhaps Jean-Francois Bernard is the best example to bring up. Coddled and cuddled as Hinault's heir . . . he promptly got his lunch-money stolen from him by Andy Hampsten in the 86 tour and never lived up to his potential.

A last complicatiing factor: aging. the mantle of "5-ness" is fleeting.

So . . . who's on your list as the 5 REAL contenders this year?

Five Terrors TT Third thready-thingy

R Mc — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:59:27 -0000

Graphics?? Girbecco ate 'em. (And Sastre's regular helmet).

The story develops . . .