It's true though- bikes are all pretty damn good now and tracks have sped up a bit overall as far as I can tell. Parity! Drama!Wow how DH has changed. Back when Sam was the king it was about bar length, bb height and head angle. Now its about riding gluten free
Damn it I will keep my Sunday stay old school and eat my gluten.
not being able to get unclipped in a parking lot isn't exactly a major off even if it does result in tooth loss.
Dude, I'm not saying he isn't talented, he's unbelievable. I just think riders get that subconscious reset after a big off and he hasn't had one yet. You could argue the same about Gee but if look at the practice footage this year Gwin is riding like a lunatic compared to Gee and Greg. You probably have to ride like that to win these things right now but I can see an inevitability in it just as I think you could with Hill.
I'm sure Gwin has had worse crashes than anyone can imagine on the moto. I doubt any crash on the DH bike is going to shake him. You forget, you don't top out at 40-45 on a moto, you top out at 90-100mph. He's probably got more saddle time riding absolutely balls to the wall on his moto than anyone racing DH world cups has. TONS more opportunity to get hurt.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't GM also have a 1st Gen Maxle for a shoulder socket between that time period?
Yes, especially later in '07. But he had some non-WC wins and a bunch of podiums so it probably isn't the only contributing factor that kept him off the top step. He certainly wasn't the only top guy riding with a nagging injury. Among others, Sam Hill started the moto pant trend in '07 by covering up a knee brace. And of course there's Barel's foot in '07 then his knee, now his femur. Seems everyone's nursing something at some point during the season.
Yes but that guy is a mental freak of nature. Coming back and winning your first WC after a massive knee injury on one of the gnarlier tracks? Just..insane. I don't know how you could come out of the gate that hard after such an insanely painful injury.
Yeah those stupid roadies should quit being Trendy and Hip with their clipless, and go back to flats. Clearly there's no difference.
I hate to get back into this topic...it has been brought up before and you can find more info in other threads here on RM but I've seen some studies done out of Georgia Tech that show clips are not more "efficient". There are some advantages but that is not one of them...especially in DH where the rider's body position is very different than in seated road riding. So not defending James or looking to further the argument but I think this is a misconception and I am sure it is not why the DH guys use them.Yeah those stupid roadies should quit being Trendy and Hip with their clipless, and go back to flats. Clearly there's no difference.
It's not a non-issue. Being more efficient on the bike = more power and strength and mental toughness reserved for what, where and when you need it.
Of course a rider can jump back and forth. That doesn't negate the efficiency aspect, it deals more with the psychological tranquility -- what the rider is more comfortable with, confidence-wise. Confidence can outweigh efficiency in a 2, 3 or 4 minute race effort.
************
I don't even wanna touch the Q of whether Believing in God = better for racing. I'll only observe that Gwin is a very young man and inclined to change his beliefs about MANY things between now and when he's my age.
word, and really, even if there is a God, the last thing he/she/it cares about is some dude riding a bike down hills.
A "study" is a financed argument in favor of something.
You're suggesting that Georgia Tech has been financed (by whom?) to make an argument in favor of flat pedals?
I am not a remotely religious person, but the one counter to this that I've heard is something to the effect of: "God is very involved in my life and this sport/activity is a hugely important part of my life, so why wouldn't God be involved/interested?". Not my viewpoint, but one that I guess I can respect.
In the world the rest of us live in, studies are often undertaken by graduate students and university faculty as means of exploring a curiosity in their particular field and test a hypothesis. Sometimes they're done with little or no financing, sometimes with grant money, or in other cases simply to keep funding be exploring a question that hasn't been answered yet. Many are conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation. University studies usually have to undergo a peer reviewed vetting process as well as an ethics review in instances where human subjects are involved. Yes, studies often disprove other studies which is a way of actually furthering understanding but it isn't principle objective. You might have a point if the study was conducted by 5.10 or some 'independent lab', but I doubt they give a sh*t. DH racing isn't quite up there with the pharmaceutical industry just yet.
agreed.
don't get me wrong, I understand the thought process of God fearers....I basically was born going to church, but seriously, sports people and their god thankin' is just laughable at best, sad for the most part. I want someone to get up and thank the flying spaghetti monster sometime.
I'll respond to the easiest and most blatently obvious here; you are correct, It is very dificult to generate power between the 9 and 12 position without being "mechanically" fastened to the bike...for a person riding with one leg...without the use of the other leg...which would be at the 3 to 6 position...which uses a muscle group that is the largest in the body...that can exert far more power than the the oposing muscle muscle group (hamstrings)...which is an anotomical fact.
This proves once and for all that god is a male. I see he has two balls.don't get me wrong, I understand the thought process of God fearers....I basically was born going to church, but seriously, sports people and their god thankin' is just laughable at best, sad for the most part. I want someone to get up and thank the flying spaghetti monster sometime.
Totally agree. At the same time, I understand where a "BikeJames" is coming from. I think that way too many people get pushed into riding clipped in just because that's the way it's always been and not for any significant performance advantage. And I would absolutely argue that beginning mountain bikers are much better served learning on flat pedals because it does teach you to keep your weight on your feet and move with the terrain, as well as reducing anxiety about getting "stuck" on the bike.
Finally someone with some sense. People dont understand that a study comming up with a result doesnt mean nothing. If the results can be duplicated by numerous studies than it is prooven. One study in most cases prooves nothing (cold fusion anyone?) and many studies are done kinda sloppy. It happens even in my line of expertise (electronics) where minute differances make a differance. I know of one company who does its reserch on bio tech with scales up to a 0.1% of a gram but has open windows during the tests...How a university sport science department does any research on cycling:
(not a computrainer in the study at hand).
The "gold standard" is an electromagnetically braked ergometer with a 15 pound flywheel. Most institutions use the same brand and model because even between calibrated instruments there are issues with precision.
What you do in a study like this:
-Recruit what is most likely "College-aged athletic males between 160-180 pounds". Expect rowers and football players. None of them are bicyclists.
-Take some measurements
-Put them on the "bike"
-Adjust the seat height based solely on knee angle
-Determine some stuff about how they metabolize crap and correlate it with how much they breathe and how much mechanical work they are doing with their legs(remember, you move all over the place when you're actually riding).
-Make them ride sitting down(only) with their tennis shoes stuck onto really slippery, narrow and tall pedals or clipless pedals that have been setup generically that the subject will only have a total of 2 hours of experience on at exactly 85rpms before the test.
-Ignore the fact that the force-production profile(torque curve, kinda) on an ergometer is absolutely different on a bicycle v. and ergometer.
-We have barely touched on experimental design but it doesn't matter any way because none of that pedaling resembles how anyone on earth rides a bike- They use ergometers.
Ergometers aren't bicycles.
why should he be interested in something mankind invented? sports were there before the bible was written (greeks) , if it's important to THAT god it would be clearly mentioned in it...
Hey bubba... we're arguing logic here, not ebarker's opinion.
I was thinking about this as well, but... by being able to "pull up" with the opposing leg, aren't you effectively reducing the amount of resistance for the 'quad powered' leg, which should in turn create more cumulative power?
What if, given the dynamic nature of downhill racing, the most efficiency is gained from "not" being mechanically connected to the pedals. I don't recall ever seeing a WC run where clipless riders did not remove their feet from the pedals.
Empirical evidence suggests an overuse of quotation marks makes you "annoying," and the inability to recognize your own "facts" as actually being "opinions" makes you sound like a "rhetard."
Hey buddy...
Parentheses look like this ( or ), or even [ ] and { }. What you're referring to are quotation marks.
The first ones are in fact parenthesis (my bad), but the second two are called brackets (you had it correct before you edited your post and added them for extra smart-ass factor). I'll try harder if you do.
Brackets and curved brackets are a form of parenthetical punctuation. Then again, so are quotations, so I'll just assume you were being abstract the first time around.The first ones are in fact parenthesis (my bad), but the second two are called brackets (you had it correct before you edited your post and added them for extra smart-ass factor). I'll try harder if you do.
No they don't.
