|
Best Pure Climbing Talent in the World
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 21-03-2008 18:44
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
He was most likely talking of real powers, not those equivalent powers made for comparison purposes. I reckon Indurain weighed more than Riis, which might explain the bigger figures for the Spaniard. Though, Indurain did about 420-430 W with the figures above, whereas Riis once topped at 485.  |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-03-2008 18:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Again, nothing personal against you, but I still don't buy those figures 
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:37
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I read in the how hard it is to ride the Tour de France article that I linked to in a post that in the 2001 Alp du'huez time-trial Lance had an average wattage at 500 for all 37-min. a ridiculous feat. |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:38
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Here is the link again:
https://www.polarusa.com/consumer/powe...ticle2.asp |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
take into account that's a 15 km tt or something after a rest day. there was no 200km stage before it, either on that day or the previous one.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:43
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I know, but it was still anamazing feat. Also, I suggest people read the article, as it lends a lot to the wattage converstation, and has a number of cool facts. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:43
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'll convince you all, some day. 
Actually, it's quite simple to understand, if you studied physics a little bit, you should get the basis of it.
There are basically 3 strengths applying on a cyclist climbing a mountain : air resistance, which increases like a square function the faster you ride, gravity without which climbing would be the same as descending, riding on the flat or flying, and the mechanical resistance (bike output and road quality) which is proportional to the speed.
Air resistance is almost neglectable at climbing speeds (15-25 km/h), mechanical resistance doesn't count that much. What's left ? Gravity.
Then it's simple physics : it takes a certain amount of energy to being a mass (rider + bike) from point A to point B, if you divide that by the time it took to travel from A to B, you get a power (power = energy / time). As we consider that what really matters is the time it took to go from A to B and not the riders weights, we can consider that weight is a constant. Actually who cares that Armstrong weighed 71 instead of 72 kg ? And that Ullrich was 2 kg to heavy, what matters in cycling is that Armstrong climbed one minute faster than Ullrich. Even worst, depending of how much food and drink they carry, their weight variates throughout a climb.
Sites such as : https://www.awsoft...montee.htm give a good approximation with only a few parameters.
Those figures I give, coming from cyclismag, consider much more parameters, thus they're more accurate.
Actually, to give an example : when Riis did 485 W, he climbed Hautacam in 34'35", beating Leblanc's former record 35'22, whereas Armstrong failed to beat it (36'25" in 2000, 1'50 more and he really climbed it as fast as possible). Armstrong was 5 % slower and would have been slaughtered !
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:50
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
I'll convince you all, some day.
That sounds too much like "the world shall be mine" for comfort
Aquarius wrote:
air resistance, which increases like a square function the faster you ride
I was a pretty good kart driver when younger. If I didn't know that, I'd be an idiot
But of course, this is not only aimed at me
Aquarius wrote:
, gravity without which climbing would be the same as descending, riding on the flat or flying, and the mechanical resistance (bike output and road quality) which is proportional to the speed.
Air resistance is almost neglectable at climbing speeds (15-25 km/h)
wrong, actually. It counts quite a bit. It's not decisive, but it has it's part. which is why VAM is an irrelevant measure.
Aquarius wrote:
, mechanical resistance doesn't count that much
In today's roads, sure, but once in a while they'll climb the Finestre or such where the roads are gravel. That's a different story altogether.
Aquarius wrote:
. What's left ? Gravity.
Then it's simple physics : it takes a certain amount of energy to being a mass (rider + bike) from point A to point B, if you divide that by the time it took to travel from A to B, you get a power (power = energy / time). As we consider that what really matters is the time it took to go from A to B and not the riders weights, we can consider that weight is a constant. Actually who cares that Armstrong weighed 71 instead of 72 kg ? And that Ullrich was 2 kg to heavy, what matters in cycling is that Armstrong climbed one minute faster than Ullrich. Even worst, depending of how much food and drink they carry, their weight variates throughout a climb.
Sites such as : https://www.awsoft...montee.htm give a good approximation with only a few parameters.
Those figures I give, coming from cyclismag, consider much more parameters, thus they're more accurate.
Actually, to give an example : when Riis did 485 W, he climbed Hautacam in 34'35", beating Leblanc's former record 35'22, whereas Armstrong failed to beat it (36'25" in 2000, 1'50 more and he really climbed it as fast as possible). Armstrong was 5 % slower and would have been slaughtered !
Again, I've read several coaches and riders saying the approximations they read online aren't even close, and that's one of the major factors in the light way that I take these calculations.
That's not to say I don't find them interesting. But only as a rough guide.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 03:36
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 21-03-2008 19:51
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
I know, but it was still anamazing feat. Also, I suggest people read the article, as it lends a lot to the wattage converstation, and has a number of cool facts. Yep, it's interesting, but here are a few facts to take into consideration : there was 1 km of flat before the climb, which should be discounted as it helped raising the average speed of the time trial, I'm not sure it's been discounted by the author of the article.
475-500 W is a frigging lot, of course. But as issoisso said, it didn't happen after one full day of climbing mountains, otherwise the loss would have been something like 20 to 30 W for a guy like Lance.
Armstrong failed to beat Pantani's 1995 record, of that I'm sure. He probably reached his best at 450-455 W (relative ones, not real ones), given Pantani's record is at 460 W (relative ones again).
Check this (French language inside, but tables are insteresting no their own), it's about TDF riders' average wattages : https://www.cyclis...p?sid=2433 |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 21-03-2008 20:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:Aquarius wrote:
, gravity without which climbing would be the same as descending, riding on the flat or flying, and the mechanical resistance (bike output and road quality) which is proportional to the speed.
Air resistance is almost neglectable at climbing speeds (15-25 km/h)
wrong, actually. It counts quite a bit. It's not decisive, but it has it's part. which is why VAM is an irrelevant measure.
Well, if you can save about 25% of energy sucking a wheel at 50 km/h, how much can you save at 20 km/h, not considering any other force ?
Hope I won't make myself ridiculous by doing the wrong calculation, but : 2,5 faster at 50 km/h means you save 2,5² more energy, that is to say 6,25 more energy at 50 km/h. 25/6,25 = 4. You can save about 4% of energy being drafted at 20 km/h.
issoisso wrote:Again, I've read several coaches and riders saying the approximations they read online aren't even close, and that's one of the major factors in the light way that I take these calculations.
That's not to say I don't find them interesting. But only as a rough guide. Their main flaw is the following : it's based on TV pictures. It means the group or the rider filmed must appear on TV to be "measured". And that's weak because if a rider doesn't appear during 3 or 4 km, his instant power might be much more important during 2 km (attack or acceleration), whereas it will be lower during the other 2 km, you'll only get averages.
That doesn't bother me too much at all actually, since attacks are based on explosivity qualities, when you know Boonen can reach 1000 or 1500 W whilst sprinting, it's clear that instant power measurements are irrelevant to guess whether riders are doped or not, even short averages (counted on 1 km) would be screwed by any attack. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 21-03-2008 20:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
nope, it's riders themselves. Evans comes to mind as saying he reads them "for a laugh".
I don't think they'd deny it just to make it look like they're clean. it's not like people are using them that way in public.
About your calculations: you know that feeling where your brain turns to water? just completely exhausted? well, given that's how I am, I hope you'll forgive me for not looking at them. perhaps tomorrow when I'm fresher.
Although I did read the article you posted. the interesting bit for me is that Riis doesn't actually hold the record. the record for a climb belongs to Ullrich on the Chaubouret mountain ITT in 1997
Edited by issoisso on 21-03-2008 20:10
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Chrizzz90 |
Posted on 22-03-2008 09:59
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 07-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Best pure climbing talent? Robert Gesink, the guy is 21 B) |
| |
|
|
| robert_psv |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:12
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 904
Joined: 12-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gesink is going to be the man, I think he can win some nice courses this year, but he's not just a climber, he's also very good on the short, but steepy hills
Team Champion manager
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:22
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
robert_psv wrote:
he's also very good on the short, but steepy hills
I really don't agree. and one of my arguments is precisely that he did so well on the Mur de Huy and not in the Amstel or Liége.
In fact, his team didn't even select him for those races.
Edited by issoisso on 22-03-2008 10:23
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| robert_psv |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:23
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 904
Joined: 12-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
He wast just 20, do you expect him to end in top 10 in all 3 classics? In one week time...
I could also say, Contador did well in Le Tour, but he didn't do well in Giro and Vuelta, in fact, his team didn't even select him for those races..
Edited by robert_psv on 22-03-2008 10:26
Team Champion manager
|
| |
|
|
| Chrizzz90 |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:25
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 07-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
last year he was 20, his first year among the pro's, so everything he did was good, you can't ask him to be great at all three Classics (AGR FlWal LBL) |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:25
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
And look at the Giro di Lombardia. he did great there. It's the only mountainous classic of the season.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Yes I can. The difference is I can't expect him to be top 10 in all of them because he's young. but I can expect good performances for someone his age in all of them.
Different example, then: look at Paris-Nice this year. on the only real mountain he did great. on the other climbs he suffered.
I'm not saying he's not great. I'm saying it's not his main strength
Edited by issoisso on 22-03-2008 10:26
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Chrizzz90 |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:27
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 07-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
he was great on all climbs, but he suffered going down |
| |
|
|
| samtheman |
Posted on 22-03-2008 10:28
|
Domestique
Posts: 610
Joined: 07-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
We saw in Paris-Nice this year that hills and especially downhills aren't his strength. And there are alot of downhills in these classics
Edited by samtheman on 22-03-2008 10:28
|
| |
|
