TubeNet

DougFowler wrote:Well, I guess maybe Americans are doing okay in bicycle racing - but I bet it doesn't stop the French from bitching. Wow - what a triumph!!
Congratulations to Lance, and to the Discovery Channel for its sponsorship.

Yeah, it was nice to see him retire a champion, and refute claims of letting his team win for him by dominating yesterday's individual time trial.

When he first won, I was floored, not so much because he was able to do so, but that he did it with a team whose key members were Americans. In the modern era of the Tour, American riders have participated only since Jonathon Boyer entered earned a spot on a European team in 1981. Greg Lemond came along, and proved that American cyclists could be great and lead top European teams. Some years later, a team sponsored by 7-Eleven and comprising mostly Americans made a tentative entry into the field.

Lance was too short-tempered and hot-headed to be good at the grand tours before his bout with cancer. In those days he was a scrappy kid with a chip on his shoulder, and not always safe for the good name of his sponsors. His first sponsor, who owns a bike shop in Dallas, is a friend of mine. Cancer is a hell of a way to learn patience, but he learned it well. And he grew up in the process. His concentration and commitment are what put him in the Yellow Jersey year after year, not just raw talent, and nobody would have ever thought Lance was capable of either on that level before his illness.

I was standing in that bike shop in Dallas when Lance announced his cancer nearly ten years ago. The whole shop fell into a hush as the word spread. Several in that store had suffered under Armstrong's temper and bad behavior, but nobody wanted that. A year later, they were his most loyal fans and strongest supporters, even though they all believed his career was over. We all became committed fans of the Postal Service team (which had been the Motorola team before that, and the 7-Eleven team before that) for putting him on the squad after his French-based team dropped him (in the middle of his treatments, and after promising they would stick with him).

My television has been tuned to OLN for the last three weeks, as it has every July since that first victory.

Between Armstrong and Lemond, Americans have won ten of the last 25 Tours since Jonathon Boyer's first appearance. That's just amazing. The leading team is an American owned and sponsored team, and three of the top ten finishers this year were American. Back in 1986 when Lemond won the first time, nobody could have predicted that it was a harbinger of an American dynasty. It's a little like having a French soccer player come over here, join the NFL, and become the MVP of the Super Bowl for seven years running. Of course the French will bitch! Let them.

Rick "a former bike racer, USCF District Rep, official (who was almost forced to DQ Lemond from a race when he was a junior), and bike-shop bum" Denney

Careful now Bloke, no politics lest ye posts be pulled (even though you make a valid point)!

TubaAS wrote:I can't say how much of an inspiration Lance has been to my father, who has been battling cancer for the last 12 years. It's just a shame that Lance's family wasn't with him to celebrate, although he could do a lot worse than Sheryl Crow!

Lance's mother and children were there, along with his current girlfriend. His ex-wife was not there.

Rick "wondering which family you mean" Denney

TubaAS wrote:although he could do a lot worse than Sheryl Crow!

I'm not sure his ex-wife that he dumped for Crow would agree with that.

I am grateful to Lance and his success. Now, when I ride I get a lot of double takes and a few rednecks cursing at me. Before Lance, those same rednecks would have tried to run me off of their road.

There was an article in the paper the last couple of days about the extensive testing that is being done on elite athletes, to find out what makes them tick physically (not mentally/emotionally.) Lance was a major subject of the article, and apparently has been tested a lot over the last many years. Turns out he is a physical anomaly of sorts....his heart is 1/3 bigger than usual; and a large artery feeding blood to his legs is much larger than normal, and his O2 uptake is much better than usual, and he produces way less lactic acid than other people. The article said that with the number of unusual physical attributes he has, he is literally one in billions. I've always thought that the athletic elite were a "different species" and it appears Lance is someone who is "mutated above average." It will be interesting to see if his kids inherit those attributes.

Of course, all that talent without the work would not have led to anything.

MA

MaryAnn wrote:There was an article in the paper the last couple of days about the extensive testing that is being done on elite athletes, to find out what makes them tick physically (not mentally/emotionally.) Lance was a major subject of the article, and apparently has been tested a lot over the last many years. Turns out he is a physical anomaly of sorts....his heart is 1/3 bigger than usual; and a large artery feeding blood to his legs is much larger than normal, and his O2 uptake is much better than usual, and he produces way less lactic acid than other people. The article said that with the number of unusual physical attributes he has, he is literally one in billions. I've always thought that the athletic elite were a "different species" and it appears Lance is someone who is "mutated above average." It will be interesting to see if his kids inherit those attributes.

Of course, all that talent without the work would not have led to anything.

MA

Sounds like he would be a great tuba player. Now that he's retired from competitive bike racing I guess we should watch out.

MaryAnn wrote:Turns out he is a physical anomaly of sorts....his heart is 1/3 bigger than usual; and a large artery feeding blood to his legs is much larger than normal, and his O2 uptake is much better than usual, and he produces way less lactic acid than other people. The article said that with the number of unusual physical attributes he has, he is literally one in billions. I've always thought that the athletic elite were a "different species" and it appears Lance is someone who is "mutated above average." It will be interesting to see if his kids inherit those attributes.

Of course, all that talent without the work would not have led to anything.

MA

The same was said about Miguel Indurain a few years back - he didn't win 7 in a row (merely 5), but during his rein he was dominant much like Lance. He won other races, too. They may be genetic anomalies, but two dominating cycling in the same era would suggest that they are not as rare as we may think.

Link back to tuba: There is certainly a need for talent and natural ability to be the best in any competitive arena, but talent and genetics can never trump hard work. The greats all set a clear and specific goal, then develop a plan to get there. On the flip side, even without talent or genetics, with a good work ethic you can still get pretty damn good at whatever you endevor.

Gorilla Tuba wrote:The same was said about Miguel Indurain a few years back - he didn't win 7 in a row (merely 5), but during his rein he was dominant much like Lance. He won other races, too. They may be genetic anomalies, but two dominating cycling in the same era would suggest that they are not as rare as we may think.

I think I'll go with MA on this one. Lance is uniquely gifted physically, but not in every way. He was equipped with lots of fast-twitch muscle fibers, making him a good sprinter. Through long and intensive training, he actually morphed his muscles to a greater percentage of slow-twitch fibers, resulting in about a 15% improvement in muscular efficiency for endurance cycling. It took him seven years to make that transition.

But the Tour has had more dynasties than not. Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, and Indurain won five times each. Lemond won three times. Lane won seven times. So, in the last 50 years, 30 Tours were won by only six riders. That suggests that most of the time, the sport has one truly dominant figure. Of course, one who wins once gets a better team the next time, so incumbancy does help.

Regarding the genetics, Axel Merckx does pretty well in pro cycling, and he's one a stage or two of the Tour. But he did not get the profound talent of his five-time-winning father. So, the genes help but they don't tell the whole story by any means.

Lance has been more focused on a single race than was, say, Eddy Merckx. Merckx won in all sorts of races and generally raced at an intense level throughout the year, rather than focusing just on the Tour de France. But he reflected the state of the sport at the time. Lance's competitors also had the opportunity to specialize on the one race like he did. None of them saw it, and that's why he is retiring as a champion. You have to decide you are going to win the Tour in about the previous October. In the last seven years, I have not seen Jan Ullrich, for example, demonstrate that he had decided to win. Lance had him cowed, but that too is part of being a champion.

Rick "who watches only one sporting even a year on television" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "who watches only one sporting event a year on television" Denney

Same with me, but when I tell that to my spouse she reminds me it lasts 21 days.

Im amazed that people are interested in watching athletes ride old fashioned bicycles that are practically identical to ones made 100 years ago. Nobody races stagecoaches or steam boats anymore.

-Eric

Shockwave wrote:Im amazed that people are interested in watching athletes ride old fashioned bicycles that are practically identical to ones made 100 years ago.

What are you talking about? What race?

Lance's bike are about as close to the bikes of 100 years ago, ad an Indy car is to cars from 100 years ago. In other words not even close, excep the basic form.

The whole bike weighs less the the front wheel of the average bike, yet is 3-4 times as strong.

ThomasDodd wrote:

Shockwave wrote:Im amazed that people are interested in watching athletes ride old fashioned bicycles that are practically identical to ones made 100 years ago.

What are you talking about? What race?

Lance's bike are about as close to the bikes of 100 years ago, ad an Indy car is to cars from 100 years ago. In other words not even close, excep the basic form.

The whole bike weighs less the the front wheel of the average bike, yet is 3-4 times as strong.

Thomas, you've just made this stuff interesting to me, which I didn't think would be possible. What are the bikes made of?

Doug@GT wrote:What are the bikes made of?

Carbon fiber

bike nerd website wrote:The Madone SSL, like the Madone SL, is made of Trek's proprietary OCLV carbon fiber, but where it differs is with the use of 55GSM, super stealthy mojo that can be found on the satellites that get blasted into orbit. This super lightweight material brings the frame of the Madone SSL down to 950 grams, 100 grams less than the Madone SL frame, and 150 grams less than the Madone. And Armstrong, who won his first tour in 1999 with the help of a stock Trek road bike, is a stickler for detail, down to the last gram, when it comes to his racing bikes. What this translates to is the lightest, strongest bike in the hands of the most dominant and agile climber in recent Tour history, Lance Armstrong.

950 grams for the frame is about 2 pounds...

other bike nerd website wrote:The bikes claim their fame through a combination of aerospace technology, proprietary design and a few secrets such as the click-shift system borrowed from mountain bikes. The frame's compressed carbon-fiber/epoxy composite called OCLV (Optimized Compaction, Low Void) allows frame builders to orient carbon fibers to create direction-specific strength in areas where stress loads vary. Areas of high stress require the increased strength of dense, tightly woven fibers, whereas low-stress areas can afford to skimp on materials and thus weight. Tipping the scales slightly over the 6.8-kilogram (14.96-pound) required minimum weight, Armstrong's Madone endured the rigors of a 3-week race without violating the rules set by Union Cycliste International, bike racing's governing body.

Information might be a bit dated, but is still very close to what is currently being used.

Maybe Rick can answer this one: Do they make sure they remove the balloons used in the molding of these bike frames? Or am I totally off base and quite a few years behind?

You are totally off-base and behind the times in terms of bike frame construction. But that's all that I know for sure. I think the current bike frame manufacturing processes involve layering carbon fibers on top of each other.

Here is about as close as I could find to Lance's current bike:

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/Road/Pe ... /index.php

Only $7700 and its yours.

They have a "Livestrong" Edition for only $9500.

And my wife complained at me for spending $400 on a mountain bike...

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:Here is about as close as I could find to Lance's current bike:

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/Road/Pe ... /index.php

Only $7700 and its yours.

They have a "Livestrong" Edition for only $9500.

And my wife complained at me for spending $400 on a mountain bike...

While I'm complaining about spending $100 on a bike for my son.

My bijke cost $60. Go figure...

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:

other bike nerd website wrote:Tipping the scales slightly over the 6.8-kilogram (14.96-pound) required minimum weight,

This is very telling. If there is a minimum weight, that means they could weigh less, and still survive the races. I'm guessing without a minimum, they'd be under 10lbs total already.

But, like all compititions, advantages are minimized. So if light weight is good, there will be a minimum weight (cycling, Indy, GP, NASCAR). If heavy is good, then there will be a max. Seldom will there be both a min and a max though.

ThomasDodd wrote:Lance's bike are about as close to the bikes of 100 years ago, ad an Indy car is to cars from 100 years ago. In other words not even close, excep the basic form.

The whole bike weighs less the the front wheel of the average bike, yet is 3-4 times as strong.

Don't overstate the case, Thomas. Lance's bike is just a few generations newer than my Trek 5500, which is the same formed carbon composite material. The frame weighs about 2.5 pounds, and a built bike on that frame with first-quality components weighs about 18 pounds. The typical heavy utility bike, such as a classic Schwinn Varsity, weighs about 45 pounds, and I suspect it would hard to find a bicycle as heavy now. I doubt the front wheel of the classic Schwinn beater, even with the horrible chromed steel rim, weighs more than 8 or 9 pounds, heh, heh.

But I'll take the strength of a Schwinn Varsity any day of the week over a Trek 5500 OCLV. I've never seen the former break, but I've seen broken Treks.

The frame on my Eddy Merckx MX-Leader, which is one of the heaviest top-line bikes made, weighs about five pounds, but it is glow-in-the-dark stiffer than the Trek. In fact, that's why I bought it--the Trek was a bit wobbly for a rider who weighs over 200 pounds like I do. My built Merckx weighs 21 pounds, with Campagnolo components that are not the lightest they offer by any means. The bike I raced in college 28 years ago weighs perhaps a pound or two more.

In any key design parameter, a modern bike used in the Tour is very similar to the "safety bicycle" of 1905. They both have a double-diamond frame and very similar steering geometry. The wheels are a similar size. The main difference is material and component operation. In contrast, the technology of automobiles in 1905 and Indy race cars in 2005 is many orders of magnitude more different. The biggest technological improvement in bicycles in their history, in my opinion, is the invention by Dunlop of the pneumatic tire, without which bicycles were called "boneshakers". That invention was in the late 1800's, and was driven by the desire to make bicycles tolerable. Bicycles for road racing still, for the most part, use wire-spoked wheels and cars abandoned that approach decades ago. Time-trial machines are more specialized, of course, but bury one next to a 1900 safety bicycle and come back in 2000 years, and they won't seem very different at all.

Rick "suggesting that bicycles at their heart are very simple machines" Denney

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:Maybe Rick can answer this one: Do they make sure they remove the balloons used in the molding of these bike frames? Or am I totally off base and quite a few years behind?

You're thinking of the Kestrel carbon composite bicycle, which is a one-piece frame. They use a balloon to create the void when they are laying up the frame.

Trek builds its frame in sections and epoxies them together. Thus, the layup is on a solid mandrel. That's why they call it "Optimum Compaction Low Void". The OCLV frame has changed in very small ways since its introduction in the early 90's. If your bike nerds are correct, Lance's frame weighs only have a pound less than my '94 5500 OCLV frame.

Rick "who thinks you'll find as many titanium bikes in the pro peloton as carbon composite, and maybe more" Denney