I have a question, since it keeps coming up that cycling isn't as technique dependent as swimming.
How much air resistance is experienced by a cyclist over the Tour de France?
A lot. I won't bring up the models used to estimate such things, because such details have already scared away many of the participants in this thread. But on a flat road, at race speed, roughly 75% of the rider's (prodigious) power output goes towards cutting a hole in the air.
But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.
Is swimming more technique-dependent than cycling?
The standard answer is yes, because water is so much denser than air.
But, air/water resistance is the limiting factor in both sports -- racers get up to speeds where their power output can't overcome the resistance to moving any faster through the medium.
Therefore, minimizing cross-sectional area is crucial in both sports. This could be called "technique" in both cases.
On the other hand, it's much easier to learn to ride "low" than to swim "flat".
Furthermore, there is a propulsive side to "technique". Swimmers need to maximize surface area when pushing water (EVF, catch, etc). Cyclists need only push (& pull) the pedals.
Thus, swimming is definitely more technique-dependent than cycling.
That issue is independent from the fact that the TdF is long and the 50 free is short. For apples to apples we could compare track cycling to sprint swims, or stage races to channel swims. Swimming is more technique-dependent in each case (although less dramatically so at shorter distances).
Duration of the event affects how you partition your training between base & interval work.
Technique-dependence of the sport affects how you partition your training between technique & pace work.
I have a question, since it keeps coming up that cycling isn't as technique dependent as swimming.
How much air resistance is experienced by a cyclist over the Tour de France?
A lot. I won't bring up the models used to estimate such things, because such details have already scared away many of the participants in this thread. But on a flat road, at race speed, roughly 75% of the rider's (prodigious) power output goes towards cutting a hole in the air.
But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.
Is swimming more technique-dependent than cycling?
The standard answer is yes, because water is so much denser than air.
But, air/water resistance is the limiting factor in both sports -- racers get up to speeds where their power output can't overcome the resistance to moving any faster through the medium.
Therefore, minimizing cross-sectional area is crucial in both sports. This could be called "technique" in both cases.
On the other hand, it's much easier to learn to ride "low" than to swim "flat".
Furthermore, there is a propulsive side to "technique". Swimmers need to maximize surface area when pushing water (EVF, catch, etc). Cyclists need only push (& pull) the pedals.
Thus, swimming is definitely more technique-dependent than cycling.
That issue is independent from the fact that the TdF is long and the 50 free is short. For apples to apples we could compare track cycling to sprint swims, or stage races to channel swims. Swimming is more technique-dependent in each case (although less dramatically so at shorter distances).
Duration of the event affects how you partition your training between base & interval work.
Technique-dependence of the sport affects how you partition your training between technique & pace work.
