Originally Posted by
chaadster
Let's not talk about efficiency like we know what we're talking about.
Aerodynamic? Biomechanical? Metabolic? Just what kind of efficiency are you talking about. I'd argue that what you call "flamboyant afterburners" are precisely efficient, because there is no other way to get the job done, and that they don't ride like that all the time because they don't need to, and can't. If Froome could crush out 400w every meter of every day of The Tour, he'd be assured victory, so why not ride "like that"? Can't.
You know what else is inefficient? Rhetoric like that.
Im talking about energy efficiency, economical use of the available resources. In the case of afterburners, miles per gallon of jet fuel, or in the case of cycling, per gram of energy bar or what have you. Nobody can say that Froome's flailings are ineffective - perhaps they are as effective as jet afterburners, i.e., very. But they would be just as much of a waste if used unnecessarily.