Originally Posted by
chasm54
Bacciagalupe, You seem to think I believe that these incremental improvements will turn a poor sprinter into a good one. I don't.
Quite the contrary. I'm saying:
• Great sprinting is about tactics, timing, fitness and training -- not raw power and bike schwag.
• The testing protocols are almost certainly relevant to solo performances, but may not be relevant to riding in a peloton or a bunch sprint.
• The improvements aren't incremental. They're
negligible. No one is winning because they are using an aero bike or an aero helmet.
Originally Posted by chasm54
One of Cvendish's advantages, it seems to me, is his ability to sprint at high cadences, out of the saddle, in a lower position than the competition.
Yes, and that's physiology, position and training. I.e. athleticism.
Originally Posted by chasm54
As for whether five watts is always significant, i'd say no. Most of the time it is insignificant. But on occasions (and stage 2 looked like one of them) the margins are so tiny, why wouldn't you take an extra five watts if it was available?
If the aero helmet is hotter and offers no tangible benefit, why would you use it?
If the aero helmet offers no discernable advantage, would you even consider buying one? (Let's dispense with the illusion that sponsorship is not ultimately about selling stuff to spectators.)
Is it beneficial for a rider to hold false beliefs about gear?
Equally important is that focusing on the equipment distracts us from what is really making the difference: Tactics, timing, mental toughness, and athletic ability.