Bike weight and climbing.

Axel Reichert wrote:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important

On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel


The Tour is really not a good measure of these things the riders are at a
unhealthy weight, which they build down to for the season.

Tour is won in the hills, as are other gran tours, some of them yes are
good TT but they aren’t world class, and like wise the guys who are might
win the odd stage but they aren’t GC guys.

Most cyclist are nowhere near as skinny, plenty of club cyclists even fast
ones aren’t even thin!

Roger Merriman

Lou Holtman wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider
gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much.
And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats
absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight
ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute
monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to
weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately
off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight
ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over
longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and
their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?

I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.

Lou


On the flats, speed is proportional to the cube root of Watts per square
meter of effective frontal area (Cd * A). Since for a theoretical
spherical rider, the frontal area scales as the 2/3 power of mass, if the
rider isn’t just carting a bunch of flab around, you could expect power to
scale linearly with mass, so you should expect larger riders should be
faster on the flats.

On the hills where the required power scales directly with mass, this
advantage doesn’t exist.

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.

Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 6:23:57 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider
gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much.
And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats
absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight
ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute
monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to
weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately
off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight
ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over
longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and
their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?

I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF..

Lou

On the flats, speed is proportional to the cube root of Watts per square
meter of effective frontal area (Cd * A). Since for a theoretical
spherical rider, the frontal area scales as the 2/3 power of mass, if the
rider isn’t just carting a bunch of flab around, you could expect power to
scale linearly with mass, so you should expect larger riders should be
faster on the flats.

On the hills where the required power scales directly with mass, this
advantage doesn’t exist.
I'm certainly not arguing with you or Roger since we all agree on those points. In fact I don't think any of us are actually arguing about the things we practice.

Op donderdag 28 januari 2021 om 20:54:24 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF..
Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.

No you can hardly predict that at the start of a race just by looking at power and weight numbers. That was my point. What I do know is that to win the TdF you have:
- to be in shape (duh),
- able to recover quickly,
- able to stay focus 3 weeks on a row,
- handle the pressure,
- able to ride a good time trial,
- have a good team,
- have a bit of luck to stay out of crashes,
- good power to weight ratio.
- etc.

To win the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) you have to be a good climber.

Lou

Lou Holtman writes:

Op donderdag 28 januari 2021 om 20:54:24 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So
in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is
somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC
rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains
not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the
flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the
power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario
Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most
sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low
that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The
reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are
winning is because they can sustain that power output over
longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power
and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple
physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.
Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.

No you can hardly predict that at the start of a race just by looking
at power and weight numbers. That was my point. What I do know is that
to win the TdF you have:
- to be in shape (duh),
- able to recover quickly,
- able to stay focus 3 weeks on a row,
- handle the pressure,
- able to ride a good time trial,
- have a good team,
- have a bit of luck to stay out of crashes,
- good power to weight ratio.
- etc.

To win the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) you have to be a good climber.

If you *could* predict the result of a bike race, or any athletic event,
just by reading stats, then it wouldn't be much fun to watch, and they
would have to change the rules. It's evolution in action: Sporting
outcomes tend to resemble the orbit of Pluto -- predictable, but not too
perfectly.

On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Op donderdag 28 januari 2021 om 20:54:24 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.
Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.
No you can hardly predict that at the start of a race just by looking at power and weight numbers. That was my point. What I do know is that to win the TdF you have:
- to be in shape (duh),
- able to recover quickly,
- able to stay focus 3 weeks on a row,
- handle the pressure,
- able to ride a good time trial,
- have a good team,
- have a bit of luck to stay out of crashes,
- good power to weight ratio.
- etc.

To win the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) you have to be a good climber.

And again, I don't think that anyone is arguing about this, that is what makes bike racing. There's no way to tell who is going to fall just that much short in one of those categories. The original posting was whether bike weight made much difference to a sports rider who is probably carrying 5 kg more body weight than he needs to be and then argues about 1 kg of bike weight that cost him $1500 Euros per 250 grams.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:59:04 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Lou Holtman writes:

Op donderdag 28 januari 2021 om 20:54:24 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So
in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is
somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC
rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains
not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the
flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the
power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario
Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most
sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low
that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The
reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are
winning is because they can sustain that power output over
longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power
and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple
physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.
Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.

No you can hardly predict that at the start of a race just by looking
at power and weight numbers. That was my point. What I do know is that
to win the TdF you have:
- to be in shape (duh),
- able to recover quickly,
- able to stay focus 3 weeks on a row,
- handle the pressure,
- able to ride a good time trial,
- have a good team,
- have a bit of luck to stay out of crashes,
- good power to weight ratio.
- etc.

To win the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) you have to be a good climber.

If you *could* predict the result of a bike race, or any athletic event,
just by reading stats, then it wouldn't be much fun to watch, and they
would have to change the rules. It's evolution in action: Sporting
outcomes tend to resemble the orbit of Pluto -- predictable, but not too
perfectly.

Actually you can bet on bicycle races. The Japanese Keirin bike races,
for example, were developed in Japan around 1948 for gambling
purposes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. writes:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:59:04 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Lou Holtman writes:

Op donderdag 28 januari 2021 om 20:54:24 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that
power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So
in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy
propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little
bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is
somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average"
grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC
rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains
not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the
flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the
power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario
Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most
sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low
that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The
reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are
winning is because they can sustain that power output over
longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power
and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple
physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.
Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.

No you can hardly predict that at the start of a race just by looking
at power and weight numbers. That was my point. What I do know is that
to win the TdF you have:
- to be in shape (duh),
- able to recover quickly,
- able to stay focus 3 weeks on a row,
- handle the pressure,
- able to ride a good time trial,
- have a good team,
- have a bit of luck to stay out of crashes,
- good power to weight ratio.
- etc.

To win the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) you have to be a good climber.

If you *could* predict the result of a bike race, or any athletic event,
just by reading stats, then it wouldn't be much fun to watch, and they
would have to change the rules. It's evolution in action: Sporting
outcomes tend to resemble the orbit of Pluto -- predictable, but not too
perfectly.

Actually you can bet on bicycle races. The Japanese Keirin bike races,
for example, were developed in Japan around 1948 for gambling
purposes.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If people only bet on
sure things gambling would hardly be a thing.

On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 3:14:27 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:59:04 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Lou Holtman writes:

Op donderdag 28 januari 2021 om 20:54:24 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10:43:48 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that
power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So
in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy
propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little
bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is
somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average"
grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC
rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains
not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the
flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the
power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario
Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most
sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low
that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The
reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are
winning is because they can sustain that power output over
longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power
and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple
physics?
I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.
Then you ought to make a lot of money betting on races.

No you can hardly predict that at the start of a race just by looking
at power and weight numbers. That was my point. What I do know is that
to win the TdF you have:
- to be in shape (duh),
- able to recover quickly,
- able to stay focus 3 weeks on a row,
- handle the pressure,
- able to ride a good time trial,
- have a good team,
- have a bit of luck to stay out of crashes,
- good power to weight ratio.
- etc.

To win the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) you have to be a good climber.

If you *could* predict the result of a bike race, or any athletic event,
just by reading stats, then it wouldn't be much fun to watch, and they
would have to change the rules. It's evolution in action: Sporting
outcomes tend to resemble the orbit of Pluto -- predictable, but not too
perfectly.

Actually you can bet on bicycle races. The Japanese Keirin bike races,
for example, were developed in Japan around 1948 for gambling
purposes.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If people only bet on
sure things gambling would hardly be a thing.
He's trying to insult everyone's intelligence. Keirin racing is a multimillion dollar sport.