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:

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

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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

"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.