-
How is any of that relevant at all? Thinking that bike weight significantly affects performance>>>>>>>
umop3pisdn-
My entire point here is that training is a hugely more relevant factor in cycling ability than ANY other factor, genetics, bike weight, aerodynamics, anything.
It's only at the extreme end of the wedge where natural talent might give someone an edge. For example, Tony Martin clearly has some ridiculous TT-specific blood. His competition have roughly equivalent training and equipment, but he can still outperform anyone.
Andy, are you honestly telling me that if I went and trained every day for a Hour Record attempt (for example), that someone with this completely undefined 'talent' could just hop on an equivalent bike and beat me? You lot are insane.
MechaMorgan
Unless your genetic make-up provides a specific handicap to effective training, the difference between people is not enough to provide a measurable advantage which more training wouldn't level out.
I am tiny, I weigh ~60kg, my bike weighs sub 7kg and can get about as low as possible. Jammy is 6'8", his ideal race weight is about 85kg and his bike, as you can imagine, is much significantly heavier.
Who is faster? Jammy. He trains CONSTANTLY.
p.s. I thought I read somewhere that Armstrong had a resting heart rate of about 4bpm and only built up about 60% of the lactic of most people. Obviously a bad example though, apologies.