Road Wheels & Road Wheel Recommendations?

tl:dr

If Fatigue Profiling is attempt to quantify everything that makes up a cyclist then yes. Otherwise no.

People work the same way, but they plop off the production line all kinds of different.

Massive derail.

For every kind of racing cycling, apart, perhaps, the highest realms of pro cycling, training beats talent and kit every single time.

Now, has anyone tried the new Firestrike Zipps?

Come off it, what do you think this talent offers that good training can't provide?

I do. I don't believe the talent 'leg up' disappears as you train more. Why/how would it if rider A responds X much, and rider B responds X+1 ?

You're going to have to qualify exactly what this talent is. What talent to do your friends have which ALWAYS gives them an advantage over the competition? They don't bump you up 2 places in a race if you have 'talent'.

Apart from the .0001% of people who are physiological freaks like Armstrong, there is no natural talent that presents a constant advantage over everyone else, all the time.

The most important thing you can do to increase your chances of sporting success is to choose your parents well. Hard work and training is of course essential to success, but will only get you so far if you've got a crap set of genes

Bad example. Armstrong is a doper, we have no idea of his natural capability without the juice. Read Faster, by Michael Hutchinson. Explains all this far better than I can.

...there is no natural talent that presents a constant advantage over everyone else, all the time.

I'll ignore the Armstrong thing but... yes there is. Or more precisely, we all have limiters to push back set at different points.

Read Faster, by Michael Hutchinson. Explains all this far better than I can.

This.

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.

limiters to push back by... training?

I am honestly really surprised that I'm having to argue this point!

I'm out.

Sorry Mechamorgan, but you're talking out your arse in this. Ability is more important than training, read the Sports Gene to understand why.

How is any of that relevant at all? Thinking that bike weight significantly affects performance>>>>>>>

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.

The most important thing you can do to increase your chances of sporting success is to choose your parents well. Hard work and training is of course essential to success, but will only get you so far if you've got a crap set of genes

I agree with this. It's mostly down to the genetic 'talent'. Yeah you can train for hours and hours, but unless you've been gifted with a massive heart and lungs then you probably wont reach the heights of professionals.

Look at someone like Rebecca Romero. Retiring from a successful rowing career and then winning a silver medal in the WC Individual Pursuit in the same year is just mental.

I'll accept that, in the highest levels of the sport, it comes in to play, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.

There isn't a single person on this forum, for example, who wouldn't be outperformed by someone who trained twice as much as them.

No, what I'm saying is that if the person with the natural ability did the same amount of training as you for the hour record, they'd do a significantly better distance. Training is important, but if I did the same training as Nibali, I'd still not be capable of winning the Tour.

My entire point here is that training is not a hugely more relevant factor in cycling ability than genetics. It all goes together with the other components like aerodynamics, weight etc. There's published evidence that supports my claim, what have you got?

Hutch makes the point in an earlier book that his genetics are so good that he doesn't get hugely better from training, and he could probably get in the top 10 in the CTT nationals without touching a bike for a year.

If I did the same amount of training as Nibali, I'd be dead within a week.

This is another point, your capacity to train increases the more you train.

No argument with what you're saying at all, but we're talking across purposes.

What I'm saying is that if, for example, Tony Martin and myself had never ridden bicycles before, and we started training at the same time for the Hour Record, but I did twice the training, I would beat Tony Martin*.

Training > Natural Talent

*lol

No, what I'm saying is that if the person with the natural ability did the same amount of training as you for the hour record, they'd do a significantly better distance. Training is important, but if I did the same training as Nibali, I'd still not be capable of winning the Tour.

How do you know? Have you tried?

If your published evidence is an anecdote in a book, I'm not convinced. I'm not, and have never, said that genetics doesn't play a part, but training is and must be the most relevant factor.

Hutch really might be one of physiological freaks I mentioned before, like Tony Martin. He might manage to keep his heart rate and muscles at peak racing condition for ages without significant upkeep. But do you really think that he would get top 10's in the nations without EVER having trained?

Because for all the claims of being genetically predisposed to be excellent at TT, I bet Hutch still trains a bunch.

@Mechamorgan

This TED talk sheds light on talent (genes) and equipment. It focuses on elites but the science applies to all of us. There are outliers ('freaks') but there is a spectrum amongst all us amateurs too. Changes in equipment will actually affect amateurs more because the percentage change in efficiency is greater.

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

At 12:45 he lists a few simple traits that'll distinguish ultra endurance athletes.