Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
flemke said:
When Froome packed himself into that stupid little ball, it was brave and very effective, but goodness he looked ridiculous!
Froome can sometimes be incredible to watch; in fact his awkward gangly style often turns his attacks into even more of a spectacle. In that stage he properly socked it to his detractors who (very reasonably IMHO) had given him a reputation of being a sketchy descender and poor bike handler. This wasn't at all pretty but it caught them on the hop and was a real breath of fresh air seeing the man throw down the gauntlet in such an unexpected way and actually put time into the chasers. It was a real moment of truth for his credibility as a genuinely worthy champion, irrespective of his team.flemke said:
ind of you to say, Mr Waremark. Perhaps I learned something from JL? I am not a fan of him as a person, but that guy knows how to drive a car, with absolutely perfect shifts every time. Of course the same could be said of MF, who has got more human quality in his little finger than the aforementioned could even dream about.
In the case of the F1, I do take care to avoid unnecessary use of the clutch which when you put your mind to it probably requires about one-third as much use as one normally would practise. Carbon-carbon clutches were not designed for commuting, or for hill starts!
I’ve been trying to figure this out and feel very dense...who are JL and MF? In the case of the F1, I do take care to avoid unnecessary use of the clutch which when you put your mind to it probably requires about one-third as much use as one normally would practise. Carbon-carbon clutches were not designed for commuting, or for hill starts!
Antony Moxey said:
There will always be financial winners and losers in sport (funding wise), that’s just the nature of the beast I guess. The only real solution is salary and budget caps, and those caps enforced rigidly. Even now Saracens are still getting away with it this season, and if they keep their players next season, regardless of whether they loan them out or not, they’ll still be getting away with.
Trouble is money talks and the biggest and richest will never sanction such caps despite what the governing bodies try to implement. Look at football, try it there and the top teams will up and leave and form their own league. Perhaps the real answer is to adopt the American draft system.
Draft system uses a natural feeder structure (such as college athletics) and imposes limits on what professional teams may do to induce athletes to sign prematurely. Might be possible to introduce in cycling but I'm not sure.Trouble is money talks and the biggest and richest will never sanction such caps despite what the governing bodies try to implement. Look at football, try it there and the top teams will up and leave and form their own league. Perhaps the real answer is to adopt the American draft system.
Big difference between the major US sports and cycling is the salary cap, which works because all the affected teams (NFL, NBA, NHL) are profitable enough to be able to pay a full roster of players so much that nobody can complain that they are getting short-changed.
I would love to see a salary cap in cycling, but the fact that as a sport it is chronically underfunded (relative to how hard a sport it is and how dedicated the athletes have to be) means that a budget at the salary cap that the top twenty teams could all afford would mean that a Froome or Sagan or Thomas would probably have to take a pay cut. At the very least, under a realistic cap Froome, Thomas, Bernal and Carapaz could not all be on the same team. And in those circumstances the teams and the UCI could be challenged in court for restraint of trade.
Jacobyte said:
flemke said:
When Froome packed himself into that stupid little ball, it was brave and very effective, but goodness he looked ridiculous!
Froome can sometimes be incredible to watch; in fact his awkward gangly style often turns his attacks into even more of a spectacle. In that stage he properly socked it to his detractors who (very reasonably IMHO) had given him a reputation of being a sketchy descender and poor bike handler. This wasn't at all pretty but it caught them on the hop and was a real breath of fresh air seeing the man throw down the gauntlet in such an unexpected way and actually put time into the chasers. It was a real moment of truth for his credibility as a genuinely worthy champion, irrespective of his team.When I see the whole peloton now descending in that way, I worry that younger cyclists will emulate it and get into trouble. It is far less stable than descending with one's butt on the seat. If I had a son or daughter who was a competitive cyclist I sure as hell would not want them coming down hills at 45 mph in that way. I think the UCI should ban the practice for safety reasons.
flemke said:
I think the UCI should ban the practice for safety reasons.
I respectfully disagree and think that's a sad thought; what a travesty it would be to stifle exciting innovation. I remember Pantani hanging off the back behind the saddle to gain slight aero advantage in a possibly-higher-risk manner. Such techniques only provide an advantage to a puller or attacker off the front, whilst the peloton can (relatively) safely remain on their hoods/drops in the draft to keep pace. As for Sky/Ineos, much like the ebb and flow of highly-funded F1 teams, I consider it to be a necessary evil, as it forces the hands of other areas of the sport which would otherwise never evolve. They'll be gone at some point and another super-train will appear.
flemke said:
By coincidence, I am amused but nor surprised to see that Jim Ratcliffe has done it again. Now Ineos are sponsoring Mercedes-Benz in F1 - another team that has dominated by virtue of outspending other competitors.
Ratcliffe's not a very creative guy, is he? Does his imagination extend no further than backing them who are already the richest winners?
I figured that he is getting on a bit and wishes to target quick, easy and effective wins; he could have chosen worse partners in radical and inspirational progressive thinkers such as Brailsford and Wolff. You're spinning (an appropriate pun in this context) and have your reasons, but you are overlooking a huge element of human ingenuity - money doesn't automatically lead to success, otherwise we'd have been looking at Jarno Trulli and Toyota as multiple world champions.Ratcliffe's not a very creative guy, is he? Does his imagination extend no further than backing them who are already the richest winners?
Jacobyte said:
flemke said:
I think the UCI should ban the practice for safety reasons.
I respectfully disagree and think that's a sad thought; what a travesty it would be to stifle exciting innovation. I remember Pantani hanging off the back behind the saddle to gain slight aero advantage in a possibly-higher-risk manner. Such techniques only provide an advantage to a puller or attacker off the front, whilst the peloton can (relatively) safely remain on their hoods/drops in the draft to keep pace. As for Sky/Ineos, much like the ebb and flow of highly-funded F1 teams, I consider it to be a necessary evil, as it forces the hands of other areas of the sport which would otherwise never evolve. They'll be gone at some point and another super-train will appear.
chevronb37 said:
flemke said:
ind of you to say, Mr Waremark. Perhaps I learned something from JL? I am not a fan of him as a person, but that guy knows how to drive a car, with absolutely perfect shifts every time. Of course the same could be said of MF, who has got more human quality in his little finger than the aforementioned could even dream about.
In the case of the F1, I do take care to avoid unnecessary use of the clutch which when you put your mind to it probably requires about one-third as much use as one normally would practise. Carbon-carbon clutches were not designed for commuting, or for hill starts!
I’ve been trying to figure this out and feel very dense...who are JL and MF? In the case of the F1, I do take care to avoid unnecessary use of the clutch which when you put your mind to it probably requires about one-third as much use as one normally would practise. Carbon-carbon clutches were not designed for commuting, or for hill starts!
flemke said:
As I said, they were just two (of the three) GC riders who happened to come to mind first without my wracking my brain or consulting the internet, as those riders have probably been the three most successful non-Sky GC cyclists during the Sky era. My point was not that all three should be lauded for their ethics, but rather that, if the financial playing field had been level, Sky would not have won as many grand tours as it has done, and other riders such as (but not only) the ones I mentioned would have won more.
I am not here to defend anyone, but I believe that Valverde was deservedly convicted of doping offences that occurred during the 2007 and 2008 seasons - before Sky existed. None since (AFAIK).
Nibali I believe was sanctioned not for doping but because after a crash he held onto the team car for too long. Every rider on every team holds onto the team car; Nibali simply overdid it and was noticed - probably because the TV cameras concentrate on the top riders. I am not defending that, but it is hardly an ethical issue on the same level as the illegal use of PEDs or the systematic abuse of the TUE system (which at least one Sky official has admitted Sky did as a regular practice).
With the notable exception of the serial dopers of Astana, I think that in the last decade Team Sky have crossed the ethical boundaries of cycling more than any other team has. The only reason Sky's lowlife behaviour does not get more scrutiny here is because they are British.
By coincidence, I am amused but nor surprised to see that Jim Ratcliffe has done it again. Now Ineos are sponsoring Mercedes-Benz in F1 - another team that has dominated by virtue of outspending other competitors.
Ratcliffe's not a very creative guy, is he? Does his imagination extend no further than backing them who are already the richest winners?
Whilst Mercedes and Sky might fall into your category of backing existing winners and showing a lack of imagination, you cannot say the same about the two football teams, Swiss and French that he owns nor the America’s cup teamI am not here to defend anyone, but I believe that Valverde was deservedly convicted of doping offences that occurred during the 2007 and 2008 seasons - before Sky existed. None since (AFAIK).
Nibali I believe was sanctioned not for doping but because after a crash he held onto the team car for too long. Every rider on every team holds onto the team car; Nibali simply overdid it and was noticed - probably because the TV cameras concentrate on the top riders. I am not defending that, but it is hardly an ethical issue on the same level as the illegal use of PEDs or the systematic abuse of the TUE system (which at least one Sky official has admitted Sky did as a regular practice).
With the notable exception of the serial dopers of Astana, I think that in the last decade Team Sky have crossed the ethical boundaries of cycling more than any other team has. The only reason Sky's lowlife behaviour does not get more scrutiny here is because they are British.
By coincidence, I am amused but nor surprised to see that Jim Ratcliffe has done it again. Now Ineos are sponsoring Mercedes-Benz in F1 - another team that has dominated by virtue of outspending other competitors.
Ratcliffe's not a very creative guy, is he? Does his imagination extend no further than backing them who are already the richest winners?
Those three are certainly not nailed on repeat winners like Mercedes and Sky and that points to a desire to improve, develop and win rather than buying the shiniest toy.
Jacobyte said:
flemke said:
I think the UCI should ban the practice for safety reasons.
I respectfully disagree and think that's a sad thought; what a travesty it would be to stifle exciting innovation. I remember Pantani hanging off the back behind the saddle to gain slight aero advantage in a possibly-higher-risk manner. Such techniques only provide an advantage to a puller or attacker off the front, whilst the peloton can (relatively) safely remain on their hoods/drops in the draft to keep pace. As for Sky/Ineos, much like the ebb and flow of highly-funded F1 teams, I consider it to be a necessary evil, as it forces the hands of other areas of the sport which would otherwise never evolve. They'll be gone at some point and another super-train will appear.
Of course the Froome ball does the opposite. Try going down a hill at 40mph and shifting forward out of the saddle, even short of the Froome extreme. It does not induce confidence, and that is not even allowing for the far-from-rare need to brake unexpectedly.
Bike weight rearward v weight forward is like car understeer v oversteer. We know which is stabler and easier to manage, and that is before one gets to the question of whether one is safer in a steel cocoon on four wheels or completely exposed on two wheels.
Yes, I appreciate that the big spenders who ruin competition eventually move on to other things, but I don't think that, as a general principle, we should happily abide bad things on the basis that they won't last forever.
bolidemichael said:
This technique is remarkably effective. I love gathering speed and passing other riders as though they are standing still utilising this method. One's torso is effectively a huge sail... grace isn't a static concept and cyclists aren't the Aphrodite of Milo.
It's fast, all right. It just looks bad and is unsafe. There is debate over which of the extreme descending positions is actually fastest:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-46...
Whilst we're at it, let's not forget what is supposedly the fastest position of all:
There is no way I would want young cyclists trying that because it's what the pros do!
flemke said:
bolidemichael said:
This technique is remarkably effective. I love gathering speed and passing other riders as though they are standing still utilising this method. One's torso is effectively a huge sail... grace isn't a static concept and cyclists aren't the Aphrodite of Milo.
It's fast, all right. It just looks bad and is unsafe. There is debate over which of the extreme descending positions is actually fastest:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-46...
Whilst we're at it, let's not forget what is supposedly the fastest position of all:
There is no way I would want young cyclists trying that because it's what the pros do!
Hazmat1 said:
Whilst Mercedes and Sky might fall into your category of backing existing winners and showing a lack of imagination, you cannot say the same about the two football teams, Swiss and French that he owns nor the America’s cup team
Those three are certainly not nailed on repeat winners like Mercedes and Sky and that points to a desire to improve, develop and win rather than buying the shiniest toy.
That's fair enough. It seems that the football clubs were viewed as attractive business opportunities:Those three are certainly not nailed on repeat winners like Mercedes and Sky and that points to a desire to improve, develop and win rather than buying the shiniest toy.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Chairman of INEOS said: ‘We are absolutely delighted about acquiring OGC Nice. It has been quite a long journey getting here, but it is unique, and we were determined to complete the purchase of the club. We have looked at a lot of clubs in the manner we look at businesses in INEOS - for value and potential - and Nice fulfils that criteria.
https://www.ineos.com/news/shared-news/ineos-compl...
so perhaps the fact that they are businesses in the industry of sports was just incidental, and perhaps that applies to the cycling and F1 activities as well.
Sailing I know less about and could not comment intelligently. On the other hand, one knows that when Ineos backed Kipchoge's sub-2-hour run it was a cheap publicity stunt with no further significance.
In this context my primary dislike is for the Dave Brailsford cycling operation. For the moment I'll mainly cavil at Ineos for getting into bed with him, but buying Carapaz, maintaining Brailsford's huge budgetary advantage over the other teams and doing absolutely f-all for women's cycling and the UK domestic cycling scene are all bad signs.
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
flemke said:
bolidemichael said:
This technique is remarkably effective. I love gathering speed and passing other riders as though they are standing still utilising this method. One's torso is effectively a huge sail... grace isn't a static concept and cyclists aren't the Aphrodite of Milo.
It's fast, all right. It just looks bad and is unsafe. There is debate over which of the extreme descending positions is actually fastest:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-46...
Whilst we're at it, let's not forget what is supposedly the fastest position of all:
There is no way I would want young cyclists trying that because it's what the pros do!
flemke said:
Whilst we're at it, let's not forget what is supposedly the fastest position of all:
There is no way I would want young cyclists trying that because it's what the pros do!
To me, that just brings up a similar thought to when I see people hanging by one hand off the side of a tall building or rocky outcrop, for "fun". There is no way I would want young cyclists trying that because it's what the pros do!
flemke said:
For fun only I have occasionally tried the Pantani position and I can assure you that, although it gets tiring, it is relatively benign. It shifts one's weight towards more stability. Without going to the Pantani extreme, there is no question that, when descending, it is stabler and safer to shift one's weight towards the back of the saddle.
Of course the Froome ball does the opposite. Try going down a hill at 40mph and shifting forward out of the saddle, even short of the Froome extreme. It does not induce confidence, and that is not even allowing for the far-from-rare need to brake unexpectedly.
I also tried the Pantani approach and due to my height and high saddle-to-bars ratio I got unceremoniously stuck behind my saddle for a few alarming seconds longer than I was comfortable with. Of course the Froome ball does the opposite. Try going down a hill at 40mph and shifting forward out of the saddle, even short of the Froome extreme. It does not induce confidence, and that is not even allowing for the far-from-rare need to brake unexpectedly.
Keeping a tenuous link with this thread, I suppose one could liken the Froome approach to be pushing the boundaries in a similar manner to the the era in motorsport of mounting wings directly to the uprights. The performance gained was outweighed by danger of wing failure and subsequent sudden aerodynamic instability... a related incident which we all know didn't end well for Bruce McLaren (even though his M8D didn't have that arrangement, as it was outlawed after the M8B).
SydneyBridge said:
I remember when Froome swapped bikes part way through a hilly individual time trial on the TdF
not strictly against the rules, but don't believe that anyone else has ever done anything similar
I wouldn't like to quote who, but it certainly has been done by others in other grand tours before.not strictly against the rules, but don't believe that anyone else has ever done anything similar
Jacobyte said:
flemke said:
For fun only I have occasionally tried the Pantani position and I can assure you that, although it gets tiring, it is relatively benign. It shifts one's weight towards more stability. Without going to the Pantani extreme, there is no question that, when descending, it is stabler and safer to shift one's weight towards the back of the saddle.
Of course the Froome ball does the opposite. Try going down a hill at 40mph and shifting forward out of the saddle, even short of the Froome extreme. It does not induce confidence, and that is not even allowing for the far-from-rare need to brake unexpectedly.
I also tried the Pantani approach and due to my height and high saddle-to-bars ratio I got unceremoniously stuck behind my saddle for a few alarming seconds longer than I was comfortable with. Of course the Froome ball does the opposite. Try going down a hill at 40mph and shifting forward out of the saddle, even short of the Froome extreme. It does not induce confidence, and that is not even allowing for the far-from-rare need to brake unexpectedly.
Keeping a tenuous link with this thread, I suppose one could liken the Froome approach to be pushing the boundaries in a similar manner to the the era in motorsport of mounting wings directly to the uprights. The performance gained was outweighed by danger of wing failure and subsequent sudden aerodynamic instability... a related incident which we all know didn't end well for Bruce McLaren (even though his M8D didn't have that arrangement, as it was outlawed after the M8B).
SydneyBridge said:
I remember when Froome swapped bikes part way through a hilly individual time trial on the TdF
not strictly against the rules, but don't believe that anyone else has ever done anything similar
I have never studied the UCI rule book, but I am not aware that it is illegal to change bikes in the middle of the stage. After all, during a race the team cars are loaded with spare bikes of different dimensions to be used as replacements. not strictly against the rules, but don't believe that anyone else has ever done anything similar
I think riders have often changed bikes mid-stage for both climbing and pavé stages, but the practice is usually limited to the team leader or someone with a real chance to win that day.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff