|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
I've got a bridge to sell you.
OK, time to call BS. Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS. Right. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Jan 28, 6:29*pm, Scott wrote:
I've got a bridge to sell you. OK, time to call BS. Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS. Right. easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Jan 28, 6:43*pm, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 28, 6:29*pm, Scott wrote: I've got a bridge to sell you. OK, time to call BS. Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS. Right. easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting +1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker Excuse me, but how exactly does pointing out the absurdity in a claim of 43+ mph for over 5k at the end of a 150+ km stage fighting through crosswinds make me either an idiot or a troublemaker? If they were going downhill (which apparently they don't have in Qatar), maybe. If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart. If you think the reported speeds were accurate, consider this. Assuming they were running a top gear of 53x11, they would have to do over 115 rpm in that gear to even reach that speed. The power output required to do that is something that only top sprinters can even do, and no one maintains it for the time required to travel more than 3 or 4 hundred meters, not 5 thousand meters. Unless, of course, they're all doping. Wait, that's it. No wonder all but two of the Slipstream riders were over 8 minutes back. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Jan 28, 8:43 pm, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott wrote: I've got a bridge to sell you. OK, time to call BS. Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS. Right. easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting +1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker Well maybe. But I rather believe that it was correctly reported. CyclingNews.com said the push came leading up to the 2nd sprint bonus. That was on the road to Al Khor. If the wind was blowing from the west, it would have been at their backs on that stretch. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Jan 29, 10:27 am, Scott wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:43 pm, Keith wrote: On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott wrote: I've got a bridge to sell you. OK, time to call BS. Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS. Right. easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting +1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker Excuse me, but how exactly does pointing out the absurdity in a claim of 43+ mph for over 5k at the end of a 150+ km stage fighting through crosswinds make me either an idiot or a troublemaker? If they were going downhill (which apparently they don't have in Qatar), maybe. If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart. If you think the reported speeds were accurate, consider this. Assuming they were running a top gear of 53x11, they would have to do over 115 rpm in that gear to even reach that speed. The power output required to do that is something that only top sprinters can even do, and no one maintains it for the time required to travel more than 3 or 4 hundred meters, not 5 thousand meters. Unless, of course, they're all doping. Wait, that's it. No wonder all but two of the Slipstream riders were over 8 minutes back. It blew it apart because they were going at a blistering pace form the get-go. The ones off the back were at their limit already and said so. Only the ones with enough in reserve could take avantage of the tailwind. Strategy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote: If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart. Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields exploding than still air or headwinds |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Jan 29, 4:14*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott wrote: If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. *But, if they were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart. Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields exploding than still air or headwinds Why do you conclude that? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:33:25 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote: On Jan 29, 4:14*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott wrote: If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. *But, if they were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart. Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields exploding than still air or headwinds Why do you conclude that? Experience. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
And if you believe that
In article
, Scott wrote: On Jan 29, 4:14*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott wrote: If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. *But, if they were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart. Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields exploding than still air or headwinds Why do you conclude that? Either because he's done it, or because he has a brain. Since it's JT, I suspect the right answer is both. Tailwinds reduce the advantage of a peloton versus a solo rider, and confound the peloton in subtler ways. The lead riders are effectively "sheltered" from the benefits of the tailwind, thus making the relative efforts of the lead rider and the pack even more disparate than usual. The effect is that a rider who jumps off the front of the pack can do so with less effort than usual, while the rider who stays at the lead of the pack has to put out more (relative) effort than usual. There's also some daffy bunching-up effects, since the guys at the very back of the pack are doing even less work than usual, and getting popped off the back of the pack is slightly less consequential than usual, and less likely since the ramp-up in drag is less than usual. It may be easier to understand by examining the effect of a headwind: the higher wind-speed means that the draft is more effective (paceline/peloton drafting advantage rises rapidly with increasing cyclist speeds, and a headwind effectively increases the "airspeed," to borrow a flying term). The peloton compensates with shorter pulls at the front (or, alternatively, the lead riders are just burning more matches; either way, spending time in the lead is especially costly), and the cost of trying an escape is higher, because the power-increase required to solo off is greater. I punched in some numbers into this (admittedly crude) calculator: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics1.html Start with a 150 pound cyclist (obviously a rouleur type) and 0 slope. 25 mph, 0 wind, 184 Watts required 27 mph, 0 wind, 258 Watts required. Now, some wind: 24 mph, 10 mph wind, 462 Watts required. Wow. 26 mph, 10 mph wind, 548 Watts required. And of course, you probably can still get to 24 mph in a heavy headwind, because the guys at the front take short (hard) pulls, and rest in the pack, where the draft largely shelters you from the headwind. In other words, your at-the-front efforts are very high, but you still have nearly the same (minimal) power needs while you're resting in the draft. So the pack doesn't slow down a lot, but more people contribute to the work, or you might get a little less rest, but it feels great. Humans are good at sprint-rest cycles like this. Lots of pro riders can do 1-minute 500-Watt efforts every ten minutes for hours at a time. But Willett notes that 376 Watts for an hour is good enough for a gold-medal Olympic TT. Compare to a solo attacker in a headwind, who must take on a all of the burden of this sprint-level effort, and doesn't get to rest. In other words, they're doing that solo TT. So let's go straight out and assume that they're putting out 376 Watts. In a 10 mph headwind, that equates to a solo speed of about 21-22 mph. Any guesses as to how good a 10-man paceline would have to be to maintain 23 mph (~37 km/h) in a 10 mph headwind? I don't have a calculator for it, but this sounds like a Cat 3 effort. And they could catch David Millar trying to solo away from them. Okay, so the Cat 3's are clearly doping, (cf Millar Line), and even TT-specialist Millar probably has enough sprint (or at least 10-minute power) to take the victory, but a serious solo effort will never work in these conditions. So that's for a head wind. A tail wind has roughly the opposite effect. -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|