Robert Lofthouse

You made my day, I feel loved ... well, liked, now

I really wanted a cookie though

I said it first, don't I get a cookie or something My first road race, on a road bike after riding MTB for a year (granted, I could only really be classified as an "ok" level rider) taught me a thing or 2 ... most notably was how fast you get strung along, and just how weak you are when you think you can jump out of the group at 45kph and go it alone. Bad mistake, and they made me pay for my arrogance for at least 5kms by sitting on my wheel and rotating behind me. I'll never underestimate the intensity of bunch riding again.

I want a bike like one of those - simple, classic designs. Pardon the ignorant question, but would those be Alu frames already (as of 1991). As an extension of that question, when did the mainstream switch happen from steel to Alu?

Granted. Then again, the argument still stands - they've trained and fine tuned their bodies to be able to rocket along like that, no way in hell is MTB going to give you that kind of speed. I do believe that those MTBers among us who think that because they ride past roadies when starting in HH group, that MTBers are stronger than roadies on the road are really deluding themselves. I also, however, believe that the premise is still sound ... evidence of that is the proliferation of Ex-MTBers who demolish the fields in mountain stages of road races. Pick a mountain-top stage winner in recent tours, chances are he has done a decent amount of MTB in his past.

Very very true. Cross training is so undervalued it's not funny. MTB gives you the low down grunt road riding doesn't really need, therefore you'll never develop fully. Road riding works with much higher gears and speeds, which is something you'll never develop (riding at speed) properly on a Mountain bike. Training both will allow you to develop a much wider range of cycling skills. Think of having the pull of a Mack truck with the top end speed of an Enzo ... you'll be unstoppable. I rode a sum total of 4 times this year prior to the 94.7, the furthest being the 55k MTB race the weekend before, and while I didn't shatter any record books, I completed both events with consummate ease at an average HR of 142 (I believe I hit a max HR of 164). I believe I was able to cruise like this purely because of the running I've done this year. I've done nearly 1200kms this year and am a comfortable half marathon runner now. The increase in cardio capacity that running has given me appears to be the 3rd factor required for the perfect allroad cyclist / running, with MTB providing the strength and road providing the speed. So, mix it up folks, you'll have more fun, and you'll be stronger/fitter/healthier for it.

93.4 here

The cheesy "modern Afrikaans music" is the tame part, you have to get past 45 seconds to really get the full impact of the Epic Fail!

Fair enough, but then the same sentiment would surely apply at the Argus (unless, of course, the number of recorded Argus finishers has also decreased over the last 8 years)

Just noticed something looking at my results history. The number of finishers for the 94.7 is around 15,000 to 18,000 over the past few years. This is out of a total (claimed) field of 25,000-27,000 cyclists. My one Argus finish shows a number of finishers tally of over 31,000, and as far as I'm aware, they cap their entries at 35,000. So, is the 94.7 attrition rate that much higher, or are the entry numbers artificially inflated by adding in the other events (mtb, kiddies, 40km) numbers? A drop out / non starter rate of around 30% seems quite high.

Of course not

hehe, you just wanted an excuse to post that screenshot, didn't you I think they're still working on the overall position thing, they had a relative position indicator earlier this morning, which I see they've removed for now. Either that or, cobuswes is right, it was cows.

My first 94.7 (back in the day) was on an MTB, I did it in 3:45. The next year, with an extra year of riding and racing under the belt, I did it on a road bike - 3:48 ... yeah, it seems the nature of the route allows MTB times to be very similar, better even than road times. Of course, that's only at over the 3:00 (or so) mark, once you start getting much stronger and dipping under 3 hours, you'll find your MTB will struggle to be competitive with your road bike.

Sorry, I only mentioned the granny gears as an amusing side observation, not as an explanation. I think wheel size plays a bigger role than one might imagine. However, on the gearing question, you can select an equivalent gear combination on either bike, but what makes a big difference, I think, is the size of the chainring you use. The smaller the chainring, the greater the torque, and therefore the more effective your power is. This seems to be illustrated when I select the big ring, and say, 5th on the cassette, and then change to the middle chainring / 8th on the cassette. The ratio is basically the same, big it's a lot easier to pedal a hill with the middle chainring engaged instead of the big one. This is purely layman's thumbsucking, but it makes sense to me - please correct me if my assumptions are wrong. Also, mountainbikers are stronger ;D

MTB - 4:07, Road 4:18 ... 2 very chilled, very enjoyable days in the saddle.