...on < 8 hours a week, you mean.

But yeah, what a dumb statement. You need to place well to get to Cat 1 in the first place, and besides... if you think that anyone can just hang onto a racing pro peloton, why don't you give it a try and let us know how that goes?

(That's for peterot, not umd)

i think the op thinks that he is fast compared to the average joe, but in reality he is not. a 5k between 18-19 minutes is not fast at all and probably both the boy an the lady would beat him on the run if they liked running. put it this way my dad is close to 50 and was active when he was like 30 and younger and a couple of days ago i forced him to run a mile all out and he ran in @ 6:10 not bad for a 50year old guy. i do not know about you guys but both cycling and running use the same leg muscles just in a different proportions. when i used to do t&f my coach always enphasize on driving my knees and pushing with my claf and quads in a single fluid motion. i am pretty light @145lbs and i am able to outsprint most riders i have riden with in medium to short hills that average 5-10%. eventhough i have medium cadence when my right pedal is at 6 my right is pulling the bike up so much that sometimes i skid.

you skid?

Based on what?

agarose2000, grazie grazie for your input. it gives me something to strive toward.

yes that is when i am really trying to compete with the guy next to me. it is not that hard when your bike is sub 15lbs and you try to putt all your power down on every pedal stroke. this is the way that i do it. first attack the hill at 20mph and coast a little downshift and take 2 light pedal strokes and the full gas though both tha pulling and pushing it is not that hard. on my other bike a trek 2.1 which is 5lbs heavier but has those paired spokes i can make the wheel rub against the chainstays.

damn.

Diagnosis: your pedal stroke is crap. You're not skidding it with your sheer awesome power, you're still pushing down at the bottom of the stroke and partially unweighting the rear wheel as a result. It's a matter of technique. Sir Chris Hoy damn well keeps HIS rear wheel planted at >2k watts on boards; no reason you can't do the same with your merely mortal power on asphalt.

you're really harshing someones skidiliciousness there...


if i had that much unbridled awesomeness at my beck and call, I'd ride right through the internet and skid on your keyboard.

I dont know waterrockets but calling a guy "gifted" that is downgrading from 2 to 3 cause he cant hang is a ******** joke. I am sure he is a great cyclist but the term gifted is usually used for the elite.

I dont know the path every single Cat 1 took to get to where they are and either do you. All I know is that a few guys that race in the Pro/1/2 field are not genetically superior. They will never win a Pro/1/2 race or place in the top 10 and they are basically on for the ride. Besides racing the local crit and TT series I dont keep tabs on the lates developments in upgrading points and amateur rules. However, when I used to race xc mountain bikes I remember that the Junior Experts would go directly to the Elite field when they came of age and I always remember think that it was a ******** joke that these average juniors could fast track to Elite without doing anything of note.

I have wheelsucked plenty of Cat 1/2 riders to the end of a crit/group ride. Beat a few in TTs. Not a big deal depending on circumstances (time of year, type of course, etc.).

Dont be *****. Go try it sometime you may surprise yourself.

I think you are the one being a *****

This. This. This.

Look, the genetically determined physiological characteristics that affect performance are on a spectrum, not on/off switches. You don't just "have genetics" or not. The best of the best have the perfect storm of genetics and they train their ass off. Someone who has higher than average genetic potential may be able to get by and be "excellent" on very little training, and someone with lower than average potential may train harder than everyone else just to be merely "good". The average person is therefore going to be primarily determined by training alone.

At the risk of using one person as an example, Waterrockets has achieved quite a bit on a relatively small amount of training. Some of that is just training smart with what limited time he has, and some of that is just natural ability.

So, you are saying that "a few guys that race in the Pro/1/2 field are not genetically superior," but then the question becomes "superior" to what? To get to that level, they are going to be far superior to the average cyclist.

Mountain biking categories, as far as I can tell, are pretty much a joke regardless...

Genetics count a lot, but you have to train smart too.

The OP is training wrong to go fast, but based on the running times, the OP doesn't have the aerobic engine to get to an extremely high level (Cat 2 for example, or Cat 1). Unless the OP is training in running like training for the bike (i.e. steady but not for speed). I struggle to go 18 mph on a training ride and I'm not very good at all. I train for speed, kinda sorta, and can go pretty fast for a minute or two at a time. By doing group rides, working on speed, the OP should be able to bump it up significantly.

Whenever I think of riders training wrong, I think of this one runner/rider. She's my sister-in-law's friend that runs and bikes pretty well. She ran 5:30 miles for a 10k in some random race (that would give a 16:30-17:00 for a 5k?). Random = non-peak. She's about 40 years old, just had a kid (her third) a few months before. I think she was the fastest runner in the duathalon but spent a couple minutes in the transition and ultimately lost out. Got 3rd overall I think.

I have a Cat 2 friend who runs for fun. Tried to stay with her (they didn't know each other) at some other cross country 10k. He was complaining that he ran 6:30s and she just trotted away from him. Another friend, a good runner that doesn't race enough to upgrade from Cat 4, he tailed off both of them and he usually runs just under 7:00 miles. So she's for real.

She time trials at 25 mph, maybe a bit faster, but doesn't do group rides, doesn't work on speed. Just power (climbs), a long ride a week. I can't believe how fast she is without working on speed.

I asked her about her training - she trains maybe 1-2 hours a day during the week (run, swim, ride) except her long ride on Wed (5+ hours), tries to race on the weekend. Never goes and does a training camp or anything. Pays her way.

My sis-in-law wants me to help the friend bump it up a level. She figures that since her friend is so scared of the bike on descents, of drafting, of all sorts of ridiculous things on the bike, that if I help her with the riding, she'll be able to improve her speed etc. Then she could actually be "competitive", instead of a really, really strong hack.

I think that doing group rides, learning to ride in a group, etc, are all important skills for a rider to learn, especially if you want to become more fit or a bit faster. Your learning curve will be steep with a group. Solo riding plateaus pretty quickly; group riding expands your possibilities exponentially. This is why I think a lot of riders are intimidated by riding in a group - there are no standard things you can do to learn how to do so, etiquette, etc, and so you have to venture into the unknown.

cdr

interval training

and blood doping

are performance drugs legal?

Yes, we do. There are very clearly defined rules and procedures that dictate exactly how it happened.

Nor do you understand that these guys are not supposed to win. Road racing is a TEAM sport. They are there to perform certain functions and fill certain roles so their designated team mate can win. They're not just 'on for the ride'.

This is the crux of the problem. You're comparing and individual sport to a team sport. The dynamics are completely different. In MTB you don't have to beat riders in higher categories to get any points towards moving up. In road racing (P/1/2) you do. This makes it VERY hard to get to be a Cat1.

You are out of your depth on this one.

Sit back and read some more threads in this forum. You have a lot to learn.

Ah! You're one of those guys.

Now I understand.

I once beat Steve Bauer, too...


















...to the bathroom at a dinner, once.

Genetics have nothing to do with speed....wind direction, velocity, and downhill grade make all of the difference in the world. Hence my signature at the bottom.

Clearly you're asking the wrong question. The beauty of cycling is in the journey, and therefore the route to happiness is in the training. It matters not where you end up.

Or at least that's what us slow guys say.

This is how Jimmy the Greek got into trouble...

What you guys are missing is that genetics is what allows the pros to train at their level. We can't compete with the pros because we can't train like the pros without breaking down or getting injured. It is a subtle difference, but important.

Genetics do not win the race, training wins the race, and genetics allow the training.