Seriously strong cycling buddies

[CXRAndy]

The one with the slightly higher W/KG

Exactly

you wont see a sprinter, rouleur beating a climber up any long distance climb. Sprinters cant sustain the same W/kg as a climber for more than a few minutes. To match a climbers W/kg a sprinter will need to exceed their FTP and will subsequently blow up.

 

[CXRAndy]

They won't be of 'equal fitness' - because they will both have trained for different purposes

They have both trained to last a multi day race between 3-6 hours per day. I would say they are equally fit. However they have different attributes depending on weight/physique

That's why stage races have different categories for riders sprinters climbers, overall

Organisers recognise that there are different types of riders who excel in different aspects of riding,

Again the Classics are dominated by bigger power riders. A climber doesnt have the sheer watts/FTP and their superior W/kg counts for little on flat short duration climb events

 

[Stompier]

you wont see a sprinter, rouleur beating a climber up any long distance climb

Nobody has ever said they could.

Sprinters cant sustain the same W/kg as a climber for more than a few minutes.

Nobody ever said they could.

To match a climbers W/kg a sprinter will need to exceed their FTP and will subsequently blow up.

Not sure what you are talking about, seriously. Nobody ever claimed that sprinters and climbers were the same.

 

[Stompier]

They have both trained to last a multi day race between 3-6 hours per day. I would say they are equally fit. However they have different attributes depending on weight/physique

Fitness is relative to the discipline you train for and relative to others around you - which is why only one rider can win the race on any given day. Again, you seem to have lost sight (deliberately or otherwise) of the discussion, which originally related to heavier riders being capable of having the same w/kg as lighter riders. Which, I'm happy to repeat, is still perfectly feasible.

 

[CXRAndy]

related to heavier riders being capable of having the same w/kg as lighter riders.

I clarified the point by stating for only a short period whilst climbing, which you refuse to acknowledge.

That is fact, using theoretical paper example is pointless. I have given plenty of time to accept.

I understand your position, its wrong, but I respect your decision, but you're wrong

 

[Stompier]

I clarified the point by stating for only a short period whilst climbing, which you refuse to acknowledge.

I already covered that. If you remember. The thing about 20 v 25 minutes. Go back and have a look.

I understand your position, its wrong, but I respect your decision, but you're wrong

Then you clearly don't understand my position - which seems to have been a theme throughout this thread. If you think I'm wrong, you need to explain why. You haven't managed it yet.

 

[CXRAndy]

Its Ace

'ignore'

 

[Stompier]

Its Ace

'ignore'

I'm here for you Andy. You just need to tell me what you disagree with - ideally as clearly as possible, so as to avoid further confusion. I can wait.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Us brick poo houses have such and identity issue with cycling ...... we cant climb like you can ... but give us a head wind and a flat road and we can power off into the distance ....

Peopl

Now I understand why you're after the flattest possible route for the last day-of your JOGLE! Powerhouse on the flat; powerhouse up the hill.

AUDAX .... Have a brevet for your 600km finishers within the time limit ....Respect .. . and have acknowledgement for those that finish ....... 2 days later .......

Riders have 40 hours to complete a 600, at less than 10mph, probably have to finish by 10pm. The organiser will quite likely have been manning an overnight stop including pre-dawn breakfasts, rushing back for the early finishers, and be at the arrivee all day till 10pm, take time to clear up and maybe be home by midnight. Do you really think it's reasonable for organisers to cater for riders not finishing until the following day (or even longer). To rie that slowly they must have taken long stops to sleep; in fact they've probably had more sleep than the organiser.
"Have acknowledgement for those [who volunteer to man the] finish." "Respect"

 

[Ajax Bay]

Hope you two won't mind if I join in. It's always a pleasure to ride with big strong riders: they punch a bigger hole in the air/wind. I have particular respect for the larger rider whether they have the power to match, or not. They are getting out on their bike: a 'good thing'.

I use Zwift a great deal and can see who are the light riders [who declare they're "light"] by their watts/kg compared to mine in a race.

FTFY

lightweight riders struggles to match a bigger more powerful rider on the flat.

You're conflating 'bigger' with 'more powerful'. A less powerful rider will struggle to match a more powerful rider on the flat (as measured by FTP, say). Size is, per se, irrelevant (though a bigger rider is likely to experience more drag).

an unfit lightweight could be beaten by a fit heavyweight rider up an hill, but thats is not comparing apples to apples.

First bit: agree. Second bit: it is exactly "comparing apples to apples": two riders, riding up a hill.

Stompier said:
"related to heavier riders being capable of having the same w/kg as lighter riders."
I clarified the point by stating for only a short period whilst climbing, which you refuse to acknowledge.
That is fact, using theoretical paper example is pointless. I have given plenty of time to accept.
I understand your position, its wrong, but I respect your decision, but you're wrong

The rider who is 'more capable climbing' is the one who can sustain a higher w/kg - for as long as the hill requires. "That is fact."
Weight is, per se, irrelevant. What is this 'theoretical paper example' which you assess as pointless?
It's quite obvious (well to me and I suspect others) that you do not "understand [ @Stompier 's ] position" and not clear (to me) what "decision" your respecting, but then saying it's wrong.

 

[Stompier]

The rider who is 'more capable climbing' is the one who can sustain a higher w/kg - for as long as the hill requires. "That is fact."
Weight is, per se, irrelevant. What is this 'theoretical paper example' which you assess as pointless?
It's quite obvious (well to me and I suspect others) that you do not "understand [ @Stompier 's ] position" and not clear (to me) what "decision" your respecting, but then saying it's wrong.

Poor old Andy has tied himself up in knots on this thread, so I wouldn't be holding your breath for an answer.