[quote=scaredycat]if you bet against lance, you would lose.
everyone likes to pretend it’s the bike.
kinda like when you put on your air jordans, you know, you could beat michael if he were wearing orthopedic shoes.
riiiiiiggghht.
mike would beat you if you duct taped his legs together.
[/quote]
Cycling is not basketball. Very little skill involved. Almost pure physics and anatomy. Lance is good not because he’s some sort of a cycling genius. Lance is good because he was born with the right combination of efficient lungs and leg muscles that allow him to max out at a higher sustained energy output than your average cyclist.
We had a stage of Tour of California here today. The winner covered all eight stages in 31.28’21”. The worst performance of all participants was 32.38’07”. Which means that it took only 3.5% longer for the worst rider in the competition to finish all stages than for the fastest bicyclist on the planet. Which means that the worst rider in the competition averaged perhaps 8-10% lower energy output over the entire race than the best. That’s assuming there were no breakdowns or accidents involved (I did not follow the race closely). A skilled rider without Lance’s genetic predisposition to cycling might average 20-30% lower output. Lance would easily lose that on transmission losses and increased rolling resistance of a bad mountain bike. If, on top of that, Lance is unable to maintain his optimal cadence at all times because of a broken gear shifter … forget about it.
