#1
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...es-yellow.html
Quote: The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders we 1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h 2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h) 3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h) 4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h) For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
On Jul 21, 6:49*am, wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...dor-takes-yell... Quote: The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders we 1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h 2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h) 3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h) 4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h) For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: For SF Bay Area locals, here's a comparison (need Connolly to check my numbers). Old La Honda is a 3.32 mile climb that many people use their time on for comparisons. It has a grade of 7.3% (IIRC), so it's a good direct comparison to this climb of Verbier, though it's considerably shorter (5.3 vs 8.7 km). Contador's speed on Verbier would get him up Old La Honda in 12 minutes 39 seconds. The very fastest locals (Cat 1/2's) get up in the high 15's or low 16's. Under 13 minutes is really insane, and to tack another 3.4 km on after that at the same speed is even more outrageous. Brad Anders |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
On Jul 21, 8:44*am, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:49*am, wrote: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...dor-takes-yell... Quote: The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders we 1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h 2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h) 3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h) 4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h) For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: For SF Bay Area locals, here's a comparison (need Connolly to check my numbers). Old La Honda is a 3.32 mile climb that many people use their time on for comparisons. It has a grade of 7.3% (IIRC), so it's a good direct comparison to this climb of Verbier, though it's considerably shorter (5.3 vs 8.7 km). Contador's speed on Verbier would get him up Old La Honda in 12 minutes 39 seconds. The very fastest locals (Cat 1/2's) get up in the high 15's or low 16's. Under 13 minutes is really insane, and to tack another 3.4 km on after that at the same speed is even more outrageous. http://graphics.stanford.edu/~lucasp...ldlahonda.html My numbers were pretty close. Brad Anders |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
Paul B. Anders wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:49 am, wrote: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...dor-takes-yell... Quote: The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders we 1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h 2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h) 3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h) 4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h) For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: For SF Bay Area locals, here's a comparison (need Connolly to check my numbers). Old La Honda is a 3.32 mile climb that many people use their time on for comparisons. It has a grade of 7.3% (IIRC), so it's a good direct comparison to this climb of Verbier, though it's considerably shorter (5.3 vs 8.7 km). Contador's speed on Verbier would get him up Old La Honda in 12 minutes 39 seconds. The very fastest locals (Cat 1/2's) get up in the high 15's or low 16's. Under 13 minutes is really insane, and to tack another 3.4 km on after that at the same speed is even more outrageous. Brad Anders Kunich was faster. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
On Jul 22, 1:49 am, wrote:
For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: "I'm waiting for my man" --Lou Reed, 1967; Alberto Contador 2009 remix. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
Please post the data if possible. Thanks!
I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
drmofe wrote:
"I'm waiting for my man" --Lou Reed, 1967; Alberto Contador 2009 remix. You need more than a $20 bill in your hand these days. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
On Jul 21, 3:49*pm, wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...dor-takes-yell... Quote: The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders we 1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h 2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h) 3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h) 4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h) For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: Dumbasses, The climb to the Verbier is reported as 8.7 km, 7.5% grade, so a vertical gain of 653 m. I don't have details on Hautacam in 1996, but in 2000, the climb to Hautacam was reported to be 12.9 km at 8.5% grade, for a vertical gain of 1097 meters. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/resul...ce00st10.shtml That is, Hautacam gained 1.7x as much height as the Verbier. So the fact that Contador went up the Verbier at a greater speed of ascension than Riis went up Hautacam doesn't prove very much. If you read this link http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...dor-climb.html he makes a big deal about how the difference in climb length should only account for ~3% in climb speed, but he doesn't realize that 3% is huge in top level racing. Also that his lousy bar chart of the fastest climbs exaggerates the difference between climbing speeds because the x-axis begins at 1700 VAM, not 0. This guy has a Ph.D. Unfortunately, many grad programs don't teach you how to present data well. Especially if your thesis advisor is Antoine Vayer. Ben, Ph.D. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
On Jul 21, 5:44*pm, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:49*am, wrote: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009...dor-takes-yell... Quote: The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders we 1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h 2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h) 3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h) 4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h) For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit). /Quote: For SF Bay Area locals, here's a comparison (need Connolly to check my numbers). Old La Honda is a 3.32 mile climb that many people use their time on for comparisons. It has a grade of 7.3% (IIRC), so it's a good direct comparison to this climb of Verbier, though it's considerably shorter (5.3 vs 8.7 km). Contador's speed on Verbier would get him up Old La Honda in 12 minutes 39 seconds. The very fastest locals (Cat 1/2's) get up in the high 15's or low 16's. Under 13 minutes is really insane, and to tack another 3.4 km on after that at the same speed is even more outrageous. Brad Anders Moreover, the local OLH times are not done at the end of a 200km ride and after 2 weeks of stage racing. -ilan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
AC @ 1900 VAM?
"Paul B. Anders" wrote in message
... http://graphics.stanford.edu/~lucasp...ldlahonda.html My numbers were pretty close. Rumor has it that several racers have crested OLH in 12 minutes or bit less. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1900 map of Seattle bike paths | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | March 27th 08 08:26 PM |
1900 Bicycle Accessories Catalogue | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | February 29th 08 04:10 AM |
Trick cyclist from 1900 | [email protected] | Techniques | 2 | June 23rd 07 11:34 PM |