70 mph on a bike in the TDF?

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:49:41 -0700, "Tom Nakashima"
wrote:

Did anyone else catch Lance Armstrong on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last
evening?
Lance was asked by Leno what his fastest speed was on his bike in the Tour
de France, and Lance replied;
"70 miles per hour!" ???

Yup. Downhill.

He also said you don't want to crash at that speed.

An understatement.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Tom Nakashima Wrote:
"Weisse Luft" wrot
in
message ...

Call BS if you want, the 70 MPH was in a GROUP and they als
recorded
the same. This is the mountains, not some sandhills. Roc
mountains,
not cinder cones.

This was in mountains, with a tailwind and on Italian steel.

Oh yes, I have set my S720i's speed transmitter to the high power
setting to prevent interference. Fortunately my riding is in a
area
that is relatively free of power lines, for now.

Just to quell your suspicions, I will go do the 63 MPH descen
Sunday
and post the complete data files. You will see altitude, speed
heart
rate and distance. From there you can apply mechanics and determine
the rate of change of energy. IMHO, it takes about 1200 Watts to
achieve steady state 70 MPH in a tuck.


--
Weisse Luft

Weisse, I believe you that you hit 63 mph, because 4 cyclist showed m
their
cyclometers as their top speed was over 60 mph in this year's Deat
Ride.
I hit a little over 50 mph, but I don't weigh that much and never com
close
to 60 mph.
-tom

70 would translate as 112 KM an hour. John Talen who was rumored t
have one of the fastest descents of the Pro peloton bragged he di
100km. Reporters of the magazine Fiets calculated (assuming his weight
bik, CW and Euro Col) that this feat delivered exceeded Talens wattag
if the col was in Europe.

You however claim 12 KM more. This means you found quite a mountai
(beating Pyrenees and Alps) and have the (long term) wattage of a goo
pro(considering Talen was't exactly a lightweigth)

64 mph I can believe, 70 stretches it too much. No proof, bu
indicative: For reference I googled and found one person claiming +5
MPH. That will be about the speed Pro's reach going down a lon
descent, so that seems likable enough.

Note that the difference between 64 miles and 70 is tremendous and muc
more as you might think with the lousy 6 mile difference

--
Tuschinski

Tom Nakashima Wrote:
"Weisse Luft" wrot
in
message ...

Call BS if you want, the 70 MPH was in a GROUP and they als
recorded
the same. This is the mountains, not some sandhills. Roc
mountains,
not cinder cones.

This was in mountains, with a tailwind and on Italian steel.

Oh yes, I have set my S720i's speed transmitter to the high power
setting to prevent interference. Fortunately my riding is in a
area
that is relatively free of power lines, for now.

Just to quell your suspicions, I will go do the 63 MPH descen
Sunday
and post the complete data files. You will see altitude, speed
heart
rate and distance. From there you can apply mechanics and determine
the rate of change of energy. IMHO, it takes about 1200 Watts to
achieve steady state 70 MPH in a tuck.


--
Weisse Luft

Weisse, I believe you that you hit 63 mph, because 4 cyclist showed m
their
cyclometers as their top speed was over 60 mph in this year's Deat
Ride.
I hit a little over 50 mph, but I don't weigh that much and never com
close
to 60 mph.
-tom

70 would translate as 112 KM an hour. John Talen who was rumored t
have one of the fastest descents of the Pro peloton bragged he di
100km. Reporters of the magazine Fiets calculated (assuming his weight
bik, CW and Euro Col) that this feat delivered exceeded Talens wattag
if the col was in Europe.

You however claim 12 KM more. This means you found quite a mountai
(beating Pyrenees and Alps) and have the (long term) wattage of a goo
pro(considering Talen was't exactly a lightweigth)

64 mph I can believe, 70 stretches it too much. No proof, bu
indicative: For reference I googled and found one person claiming +5
MPH. That will be about the speed Pro's reach going down a lon
descent, so that seems likable enough.

Note that the difference between 64 miles and 70 is tremendous and muc
more as you might think with the lousy 6 mile difference

--
Tuschinski

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:52:22 +1000, Tuschinski
wrote:


Weisse Luft Wrote:
I've yet to race in the Tour but I have broken 70 MPH on a long descent
with tailwind. In the mountains, natch.

Just a few weeks ago I broke 63 on a short but terrifyingly steep
descent in the hills. I had climbed a steep section and was traversing
the top, flat section, around a curve so I had some speed and recovery.
Since it had been 15 years since I traveled this road, I forgot the
descent until it was too late to brake safely. Since the road was
straight, I tucked in, dropped to my 12 in the back and held on. The
road was very rough and I never looked down, relying on the maximum
recording on my computer.

Ex post facto, I looked at a topo map. In 1/4 mile, I had descended
almost 300feet. Wow, a 20% average grade.

I think I shall keep this road a secret now that I just bought a Polar
S720i. It will be my training secret.

I call major BS. Over 70 MPH is nonsense.

I've been passed by a bicyclist on a long downgrade in the Rocky
Mountains while going 65mph in an automobile. Said cyclist was pulled
over by a Colorado state trooper (presumably for speeding, but
possibly for not being on the shoulder of the Interstate) a few miles
farther down the grade. I estimated his speed at 75. The speed limit
was 55 at the time, but not for engineering reasons. There may have
been a tailwind, but I wasn't paying attention to that.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:52:22 +1000, Tuschinski
wrote:


Weisse Luft Wrote:
I've yet to race in the Tour but I have broken 70 MPH on a long descent
with tailwind. In the mountains, natch.

Just a few weeks ago I broke 63 on a short but terrifyingly steep
descent in the hills. I had climbed a steep section and was traversing
the top, flat section, around a curve so I had some speed and recovery.
Since it had been 15 years since I traveled this road, I forgot the
descent until it was too late to brake safely. Since the road was
straight, I tucked in, dropped to my 12 in the back and held on. The
road was very rough and I never looked down, relying on the maximum
recording on my computer.

Ex post facto, I looked at a topo map. In 1/4 mile, I had descended
almost 300feet. Wow, a 20% average grade.

I think I shall keep this road a secret now that I just bought a Polar
S720i. It will be my training secret.

I call major BS. Over 70 MPH is nonsense.

I've been passed by a bicyclist on a long downgrade in the Rocky
Mountains while going 65mph in an automobile. Said cyclist was pulled
over by a Colorado state trooper (presumably for speeding, but
possibly for not being on the shoulder of the Interstate) a few miles
farther down the grade. I estimated his speed at 75. The speed limit
was 55 at the time, but not for engineering reasons. There may have
been a tailwind, but I wasn't paying attention to that.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Tom Nakashima wrote:

Weisse, I believe you that you hit 63 mph, because 4 cyclist showed me their
cyclometers as their top speed was over 60 mph in this year's Death Ride.
I hit a little over 50 mph, but I don't weigh that much

What does your weight have to do with it?

and never come close
to 60 mph.
-tom


Larry Coon
University of California

Tom Nakashima wrote:

Weisse, I believe you that you hit 63 mph, because 4 cyclist showed me their
cyclometers as their top speed was over 60 mph in this year's Death Ride.
I hit a little over 50 mph, but I don't weigh that much

What does your weight have to do with it?

and never come close
to 60 mph.
-tom


Larry Coon
University of California

Larry Coon Wrote:
Tom Nakashima wrote

Weisse, I believe you that you hit 63 mph, because 4 cyclist showe
me thei
cyclometers as their top speed was over 60 mph in this year's Deat
Ride
I hit a little over 50 mph, but I don't weigh that muc

What does your weight have to do with it

and never come clos
to 60 mph
-to


Larry Coo
University of California
10 MPH tailwinds will help breaking 70. I did descent on a littl
8-10% grade with a group of tandems where we did 55 MPH only because o
the tailwind.

The descents that push you over 60 inspire feelings of "I'm going to g
over the handlebars" along with fears of crashing midway only to roll t
the bottom.

The longer mountain roads are graded more gradually to prevent brak
fade on automobiles. Shorter sections in the hills can have muc
steeper grades, up to 22%.

[image: http://scasagrande.tripod.com/NZ3b/Baldwin.jpg]

You see where the road disappears? That is just like the one I brok
63 on except no development. Or tee intersection at the bottom, only
sharp left turn after ~1/4 mile Yes, I smoked some pad material

--
Weisse Luft

Larry Coon Wrote:
Tom Nakashima wrote

Weisse, I believe you that you hit 63 mph, because 4 cyclist showe
me thei
cyclometers as their top speed was over 60 mph in this year's Deat
Ride
I hit a little over 50 mph, but I don't weigh that muc

What does your weight have to do with it

and never come clos
to 60 mph
-to


Larry Coo
University of California
10 MPH tailwinds will help breaking 70. I did descent on a littl
8-10% grade with a group of tandems where we did 55 MPH only because o
the tailwind.

The descents that push you over 60 inspire feelings of "I'm going to g
over the handlebars" along with fears of crashing midway only to roll t
the bottom.

The longer mountain roads are graded more gradually to prevent brak
fade on automobiles. Shorter sections in the hills can have muc
steeper grades, up to 22%.

[image: http://scasagrande.tripod.com/NZ3b/Baldwin.jpg]

You see where the road disappears? That is just like the one I brok
63 on except no development. Or tee intersection at the bottom, only
sharp left turn after ~1/4 mile Yes, I smoked some pad material

--
Weisse Luft

"Tom Nakashima" writes:

Did anyone else catch Lance Armstrong on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno last evening? Lance was asked by Leno what his fastest speed
was on his bike in the Tour de France, and Lance replied; "70 miles
per hour!" ???

Extremely unlikely. None of the mountain roads I've ridden in France
are sufficiently steep or straight for these speeds to be reached even
momentarily. 70 km/h (44 mph), yes. 70 mph (112 km/h), no.

He also said you don't want to crash at that speed.

That would be true. But then I don't really want to crash at any
speed.