|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message Having a 3rd (and Final) Individual Time Trial on the penultimate day of the race really helps to insure that the eventual GC winner will have to rely on his own strength. The TdF ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish. How about Puy de Dome on Friday before Paris? All the best Dan Gregory |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
m... I think that the organizers did a good job designing the route to keep the race interesting until the final day. Having a 3rd (and Final) Individual Time Trial on the penultimate day of the race really helps to insure that the eventual GC winner will have to rely on his own strength. Having the ITT consist simply, and solely, of a Category 1 climb (Maximum Grade: 17 %) up Alto de Abantos. This should be very interesting. The TdF ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish. It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills The right stage for Tom Danielson, if he ever gets that far. -Sonarrat. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message The TdF ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish. It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills They do quite often. It is usually the second of the 3 ITTs in the Tour that is a mountain TT (when they use such a course). In 2001: stage 11 won by Armstrong, described as a "mountain TT" it rose 1521 meters in 32 km. In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50 km, but finished with a climb. I could not find the course. In 1996, the first ITT stage 8 to Val d'Isere was a mountain TT, won by Berzin. In 1989, the second ITT was stage 15 Gap - Orcieres-Merlette, won by Steven Rooks I must have forgotten a few, but you can see they do several each decade. Oh yeah, one of the best was the 1987 ITT won by Jean-Francois Bernard. It was stage 18 (it seemed earlier and there were 24 or 25 stages that year!) and it was up Mt. Ventoux! He dominated that TT and everyone thought he was the heir to the Tour (since he raced in to the yellow jersey, and his team had won the 2 prior Tours with Hinault and Lemond, AND was thought to be "the next Hinault"). In conclusion, I totally agree with you. Perhaps you think they last ITT should be in the mountains, but that is a problem unless they either have a transfer between the ITT and the stage in Paris, or they relocate the last stage in to Paris (no way!) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
Nick Burns wrote:
In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50 km, but finished with a climb. I could not find the course. The climb was from the start. In that stage Ullrich switched the bike at the top of the climb, to his heavy TT bike (the type that Riis used in some bike throwing experiment). For a stage profile, see http://www.letour.fr/tour97us/july18/Etape12.swf Dieter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
Nick Burns wrote: "Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message The TdF ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish. It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills They do quite often. It is usually the second of the 3 ITTs in the Tour that is a mountain TT (when they use such a course). In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass. In the flat limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75). This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves 0.5 for width * height, so assuming an equal partition, depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So cross-section is roughly proportional to mass^0.75. So there isn't as much difference as one might expect. Dan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
"Daniel Connelly" wrote in message In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass. In the flat limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75). This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves 0.5 for width * height, so assuming an equal partition, depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So cross-section is roughly proportional to mass^0.75. So there isn't as much difference as one might expect. Dan Time gaps may not be different except when a rider blows up in a mountain ITT there is a risk of losing even more time than blowing up in a flat ITT. Mountain TTs look and feel different. The riders are going slower and you can see them struggle, especially the fans on the course. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
Sonarrat wrote:
"I The right stage for Tom Danielson, if he ever gets that far. -Sonarrat. Maybe I'll get yelled at for this one, but how great is the evidence that Danielson is a great climber. I hear about his performance in the MT. Washington hill climb and yeah he broke Tylers record, but it was in better conditions and Tyler is not exactly the best climber. Actually Tyler is a pretty marginal climber. I mean there is no evidence that I see that says that Danielson has anywhere near the caliber of cliber of Mayo, Lance, Heras, Beltran, or any other spanish climber. Not as if that is bad, but everyone talks like Danielson is some climbing phenom, but there is really no evidence of this. He may be good and being as good a climber as Hamilton is a good place to be, but I think we are a bit ahead of ourselves on this one. -- -------------------------- Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
Robert Chung wrote: Daniel Connelly wrote: In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass. In the flat limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75). This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves 0.5 for width * height, so assuming an equal partition, depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So cross-section is roughly proportional to mass^0.75. So there isn't as much difference as one might expect. http://www.topica.com/lists/wattage/...?mid=904035539 Okay, so I neglected Cd differences, which make CdA proportional to height^0.75, but generally independent of mass. For fixed BMI, this corresponds to CdA proportional to mass^0.38, not 0.75. Hmmm.... The interesting thing is most work I've seen assumes fixed Cd. BTW, nice to see you back. Dan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!
Daniel Connelly wrote:
Okay, so I neglected Cd differences, which make CdA proportional to height^0.75, but generally independent of mass. For fixed BMI, this corresponds to CdA proportional to mass^0.38, not 0.75. Hmmm.... Yeah. So, do you have any thoughts about how W might vary with mass? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How old were you when you got your first really nice bike? | Brink | General | 43 | November 13th 03 10:49 AM |
Wins in Grand Tours? | Isidor Gunsberg | Racing | 11 | July 31st 03 07:32 PM |