Why are many of the small climbers not great time trialists and some of the bigger time trialists not great climbers? It seems like both disciplines have to do with a rider’s power to weight ratio. Over the course of a long mountain climb a rider would need to produce fairly steady watts, much like in a time trial. Does it have to do with the constant downward acceleration of gravity on the climb? Maybe I should ask my old high school physics teacher or I guess I’m just missing something obvious.
Besides Lance, though, there are very few. As was posted earlier, TT’ing has very little to do with weight. It is almost entirely dependent on frontal area. And a larger rider can be significantly more powerful while being only marginally less aerodynamic.
TT’ing has very little to do with weight. It is almost entirely dependent on frontal area. And a larger rider can be significantly more powerful while being only marginally less aerodynamic.
From one of the latest articles i read on this subject…it is said that most TT riders tend to be ones with a larger muscle mass and slower twitch muscles…similar to climbers but not as small and skinny
to quote :" TT is about aerodynamics, but an aerodynamic position must not compromise power output. Typically the small lightweight guys don’t so well. They just don’t have the muscle mass to ride fast enough for long enough…"
Most really good climbers don’t fit the above description…usually…
Indurain was not a great climber. He lost time in the mountains. Lance is one of the top climbers in the world. He can climb as well or better than Pantani, who is one of the all time great climbers. Indurain’s goal was to not lose too much time. But he didn’t own mountain stages like Lance.
And just remember as well that some of these pro riders don’t race just pure TT’s…they ride "all around " and i think it would be very interesting to see some one such as Lance Armstrong race head to head in a pure TT against a guy like Michael Hutchinson or Michael Rogers over the 100 mile TT…
I think you can be good at both but not the best at both…or more guy would be…
Indurain was not a great climber. He lost time in the mountains. Lance is one of the top climbers in the world. He can climb as well or better than Pantani, who is one of the all time great climbers. Indurain’s goal was to not lose too much time. But he didn’t own mountain stages like Lance.
I don’t know why people say this about Indurain. Very, very few people ever dropped him in the mountains in the TdF; he, however crushed many people on climbs. Just looking at 1995, he finished 2nd to Pantani at Alpe d’Huez. If by “great climber” you mean “the best climber in the world”, you are right. But he was certainly a great climber.
Indurain rode to win the tour and didn’t race to win mountain stages, but it’s hardly true that he lost time in the mountains. In most cases, he finished ahead of the leading GC contenders or within a few seconds of them when he had minutes to spare and when it mattered, he could climb and drop just about anyone. Here are a few of his palmares from the Tour.
Luz Ardiden, 1990: Stage win
Alpe D’Huez, 1991 same time as stage winner Bugno, Chiapucci @43", Theunisse, Lemond, Hampsten @ 2’
Sestrieres, 1992: chased down long Chiapucci break on his own came up just short for third behind non-factor Vona
Hautacam, 1994: 18" on Pantani, 56" on Virenque
La Plagne 1995: chased early attack by Zulle didn’t catch but put time on everyone else in the field.
Indurain was a “great” everything. Nobody wins the TdF if they really get dropped. Indurain won 12 TdF stages, and I would guess most of those were ITT’s (and prologues). That is the difference vs. Hinault, Lance, & Merckx. To win the TdF you must be great at everything. But if there had been a stage like the Alpe d’Huez TT when Indurain raced, he would not have been the winner of that stage.
“But if there had been a stage like the Alpe d’Huez TT when Indurain raced, he would not have been the winner of that stage.”
I don’t see that. Indurain was a phenomenal time trialist and he essentially won an Alpe D’Huez road stage, so why wouldn’t he have been able to combine the two for the Alpe D’Huez TT? But there’s really no way to settle this. It’s purely hypothetical and a matter of opinion.
Well, the way to settle it would be to find out from a reliable sourece Indurains CP45 and his weight, and then Lance’s CP45 and weight, and the same data for the rest of the riders. Assume they are all on UCI-minimum weight bikes.
The bike itself actually would make Indurain more competitive. Percentage wise, his frame was a smaller percentage of his body weight than, say, Pantani’s. If they rode proportionally light bikes, the results might be different.
But hypotheticals and matters of opinion are what make ST fun…
Laughable. Pure TT? Rogers is anything but a “pure TTer” Its not like he’s sloughing off in all his racing the rest of the year. Neither of his Worlds wins have come against the best. Put Ullrich and/or Armstrong in the race, in top shape, and Rogers is 2nd or 3rd, at best. Hell, Ekimov, in shape (and maybe before his big wreck this year) would beat those two. Right now, you give me an Ullrich who has targeted whatever TT we’re talking about and I’ll take the bet. (Just don’t make it the TdF prologue…
Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong…all of them have been great climbers AND great TTers. ALL of their great rivals fell short in one or the other discipline, relative to these guys…
