Olympic Time Trial

The Olympic road TT has concluded. Finishing times are here
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...results_232607.

Let's look at the average separation among finishers:

1-5 : 0.85%
1-10 : 0.69
1-20 : 0.47
1-30 : 0.39

The course profile was mostly flat, with a few short climbs. The
winning speed was over 32 mph. As such, aero drag is the primary
loss, which compresses the differences compared to a hill climb.
The reason is that on a hill climb power is proportional to the
velocity, while with aerodrag it is proportional to the cube of the
velocity.

The average seperation between places is on the order of 0.5%.
To move up one place, on average, you need to improve by about that
much.

Translating this to a hill climb, if you hope to move up one place, and
expect to do so by reducing the weight of your bike, you need to reduce
it by approximately 0.5% of the total weight of you and the bike. The
actual value is normally higher because, as mentioned, separations are
generally greater on a hill climb due to the linear relation of power to
velocity.


--
Joe Riel

INTERESTING PAGE...


is there a 2000 results sheet online...for comparison ?


one group sez those results define drug use age.

party time ? as skiing ? the woman's has a on the road pass...

not bad 1ST n 4TH

brit whinnikng is outstanding. we weep. wait'll Wiggins wins 2...

datakoll writes:

INTERESTING PAGE...


is there a 2000 results sheet online...for comparison ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclin...oad_time_trial

I arbitrarily selected the top 20 of those results and computed
an average difference of 0.25%, which is tighter. As mentioned,
a flat time trial compressess the results compared to a hill climb,
the factor should be between 2 and 3.


--
Joe Riel

On Aug 1, 11:20*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
The Olympic road TT has concluded. *Finishing times are here * *http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-mens-time-tri....

Let's look at the average separation among finishers:

1-5 *: 0.85%
1-10 : 0.69
1-20 : 0.47
1-30 : 0.39

The course profile was mostly flat, with a few short climbs. *The
winning speed was over 32 mph. *As such, aero drag is the primary
loss, which compresses the differences compared to a hill climb.
The reason is that on a hill climb power is proportional to the
velocity, while with aerodrag it is proportional to the cube of the
velocity.

The average seperation between places is on the order of 0.5%.
To move up one place, on average, you need to improve by about that
much.

Translating this to a hill climb, if you hope to move up one place, and
expect to do so by reducing the weight of your bike, you need to reduce
it by approximately 0.5% of the total weight of you and the bike. *The
actual value is normally higher because, as mentioned, separations are
generally greater on a hill climb due to the linear relation of power to
velocity.

--
Joe Riel


There is nothing specifically wrong with your arithmetic, nor with any
factual statement you have made (excluding you conclusions).
But you start with the erroneous assumption that results from a
single race establish some sort of general rule.

And you "Translat[e] this to a hill climb" by simply waving your
hands.

For example, start over, using the results he
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-f...ologue/results

Simply following your guidelines roughly gives the *average* value of
a "place" being ~.07%. But note, how many places are "S.T." Note also
that .07% is less than two ounces for a 150 lb rider/15 lb bike.

DR

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Joe Riel wrote:
datakoll writes:
INTERESTING PAGE...

is there a 2000 results sheet online...for comparison ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclin...r_Olympics_-_M...

I arbitrarily selected ....

There is hardly any point in doing any sort of numerical analysis if
data is "arbitrarily selected."

DR

DirtRoadie writes:

On Aug 1, 11:20Â*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
The Olympic road TT has concluded. Â*Finishing times are here Â* Â*http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-mens-time-tri....

Let's look at the average separation among finishers:

1-5 Â*: 0.85%
1-10 : 0.69
1-20 : 0.47
1-30 : 0.39

The course profile was mostly flat, with a few short climbs. Â*The
winning speed was over 32 mph. Â*As such, aero drag is the primary
loss, which compresses the differences compared to a hill climb.
The reason is that on a hill climb power is proportional to the
velocity, while with aerodrag it is proportional to the cube of the
velocity.

The average seperation between places is on the order of 0.5%.
To move up one place, on average, you need to improve by about that
much.

Translating this to a hill climb, if you hope to move up one place, and
expect to do so by reducing the weight of your bike, you need to reduce
it by approximately 0.5% of the total weight of you and the bike. Â*The
actual value is normally higher because, as mentioned, separations are
generally greater on a hill climb due to the linear relation of power to
velocity.

--
Joe Riel


There is nothing specifically wrong with your arithmetic, nor with any
factual statement you have made (excluding you conclusions).
But you start with the erroneous assumption that results from a
single race establish some sort of general rule.

And you "Translat[e] this to a hill climb" by simply waving your
hands.

For example, start over, using the results he
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-f...ologue/results

Simply following your guidelines roughly gives the *average* value of
a "place" being ~.07%. But note, how many places are "S.T." Note also
that .07% is less than two ounces for a 150 lb rider/15 lb bike.

A 7 minute prologue isn't the best predictor of differences in a typical
time trial. Also, you have to be a bit careful when using the entire
field in a stage race. Some guys have no chance to win and won't
exactly give a maximum effort. If you look at the top 20, guys who are
motivated, the average difference is 0.2%.

I purposely omitted giving the derivation of the factor of 2 to 3
when translating to a hill climb. That is a trivial computation that
comes from noting the relation of power to velocity.


--
Joe Riel

DirtRoadie writes:

On Aug 2, 9:09Â*am, Joe Riel wrote:
datakoll writes:
INTERESTING PAGE...

is there a 2000 results sheet online...for comparison ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclin...r_Olympics_-_M...

I arbitrarily selected ....

There is hardly any point in doing any sort of numerical analysis if
data is "arbitrarily selected."

By arbitrarily selected I meant I just picked that value. I didn't do
any cherry picking. Didn't compute the result for any other places.



--
Joe Riel

On Aug 2, 9:43*am, Joe Riel wrote:
DirtRoadie writes:
On Aug 1, 11:20*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
The Olympic road TT has concluded. *Finishing times are here * *http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-mens-time-tri....

Let's look at the average separation among finishers:

1-5 *: 0.85%
1-10 : 0.69
1-20 : 0.47
1-30 : 0.39

The course profile was mostly flat, with a few short climbs. *The
winning speed was over 32 mph. *As such, aero drag is the primary
loss, which compresses the differences compared to a hill climb.
The reason is that on a hill climb power is proportional to the
velocity, while with aerodrag it is proportional to the cube of the
velocity.

The average seperation between places is on the order of 0.5%.
To move up one place, on average, you need to improve by about that
much.

Translating this to a hill climb, if you hope to move up one place, and
expect to do so by reducing the weight of your bike, you need to reduce
it by approximately 0.5% of the total weight of you and the bike. *The
actual value is normally higher because, as mentioned, separations are
generally greater on a hill climb due to the linear relation of power to
velocity.

--
Joe Riel

There is nothing specifically wrong with your arithmetic, nor with any
factual statement you have made (excluding you conclusions).
But you start with the erroneous assumption that *results from a
single race establish some sort of general rule.

And you "Translat[e] this to a hill climb" by simply waving your
hands.

For example, start over, using the results he
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-f...ologue/results

Simply following your guidelines roughly gives the *average* value of
a "place" being ~.07%. But note, how many places are "S.T." Note also
that .07% is less than two ounces for a 150 lb rider/15 lb bike.

A 7 minute prologue isn't the best predictor of differences in a typical
time trial.

I see, now you are trying to compensate by saying that you are going
to cherry pick the races that YOU think are relevant.

*Also, you have to be a bit careful when using the entire
field in a stage race.

I see, we are now going to start making subjective assessment about
the data in advance so that we can make sure our data matches the
result we are trying to impose. Nice!

*Some guys have no chance to win and won't
exactly give a maximum effort.

So you chose the OLYMPICS. Let's see - Jamaican Bobsled team, Eddy
the Eagle. Remember them?

*If you look at the top 20, guys who are
motivated, the average difference is 0.2%.

OK so take the top 10, top 20, top 50 of the prologue. What the heck,
figure out which guys YOU don't want to include.

I purposely omitted giving the derivation of the factor of 2 to 3
when translating to a hill climb. *That is a trivial computation that
comes from noting the relation of power to velocity.

You seem to think that how you process the numbers validates the
underlying data or your underlying assumptions.
Shame on you! Really, really, sloppy!
DR

DirtRoadie writes:

On Aug 2, 9:43Â*am, Joe Riel wrote:
DirtRoadie writes:
On Aug 1, 11:20Â*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
The Olympic road TT has concluded. Â*Finishing times are here Â* Â*http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-mens-time-tri....

Let's look at the average separation among finishers:

1-5 Â*: 0.85%
1-10 : 0.69
1-20 : 0.47
1-30 : 0.39

The course profile was mostly flat, with a few short climbs. Â*The
winning speed was over 32 mph. Â*As such, aero drag is the primary
loss, which compresses the differences compared to a hill climb.
The reason is that on a hill climb power is proportional to the
velocity, while with aerodrag it is proportional to the cube of the
velocity.

The average seperation between places is on the order of 0.5%.
To move up one place, on average, you need to improve by about that
much.

Translating this to a hill climb, if you hope to move up one place, and
expect to do so by reducing the weight of your bike, you need to reduce
it by approximately 0.5% of the total weight of you and the bike. Â*The
actual value is normally higher because, as mentioned, separations are
generally greater on a hill climb due to the linear relation of power to
velocity.

--
Joe Riel

There is nothing specifically wrong with your arithmetic, nor with any
factual statement you have made (excluding you conclusions).
But you start with the erroneous assumption that Â*results from a
single race establish some sort of general rule.

And you "Translat[e] this to a hill climb" by simply waving your
hands.

For example, start over, using the results he
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-f...ologue/results

Simply following your guidelines roughly gives the *average* value of
a "place" being ~.07%. But note, how many places are "S.T." Note also
that .07% is less than two ounces for a 150 lb rider/15 lb bike.

A 7 minute prologue isn't the best predictor of differences in a typical
time trial.

I see, now you are trying to compensate by saying that you are going
to cherry pick the races that YOU think are relevant.

Â*Also, you have to be a bit careful when using the entire
field in a stage race.

I see, we are now going to start making subjective assessment about
the data in advance so that we can make sure our data matches the
result we are trying to impose. Nice!



Â*Some guys have no chance to win and won't
exactly give a maximum effort.

So you chose the OLYMPICS. Let's see - Jamaican Bobsled team, Eddy
the Eagle. Remember them?

Which riders were those in the posted results?

Â*If you look at the top 20, guys who are
motivated, the average difference is 0.2%.

OK so take the top 10, top 20, top 50 of the prologue. What the heck,
figure out which guys YOU don't want to include.

Top 10 gives 0.23
Top 50 gives 0.11

I purposely omitted giving the derivation of the factor of 2 to 3
when translating to a hill climb. Â*That is a trivial computation that
comes from noting the relation of power to velocity.

You seem to think that how you process the numbers validates the
underlying data or your underlying assumptions.
Shame on you! Really, really, sloppy!

Don't forget, when all is said and done, these averages are
for moving up *one place*.

--
Joe Riel

On Aug 2, 10:17*am, Joe Riel wrote:
DirtRoadie writes:
On Aug 2, 9:43*am, Joe Riel wrote:
DirtRoadie writes:
On Aug 1, 11:20*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
The Olympic road TT has concluded. *Finishing times are here * *http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-mens-time-tri.....

Let's look at the average separation among finishers:

1-5 *: 0.85%
1-10 : 0.69
1-20 : 0.47
1-30 : 0.39

The course profile was mostly flat, with a few short climbs. *The
winning speed was over 32 mph. *As such, aero drag is the primary
loss, which compresses the differences compared to a hill climb.
The reason is that on a hill climb power is proportional to the
velocity, while with aerodrag it is proportional to the cube of the
velocity.

The average seperation between places is on the order of 0.5%.
To move up one place, on average, you need to improve by about that
much.

Translating this to a hill climb, if you hope to move up one place, and
expect to do so by reducing the weight of your bike, you need to reduce
it by approximately 0.5% of the total weight of you and the bike. *The
actual value is normally higher because, as mentioned, separations are
generally greater on a hill climb due to the linear relation of power to
velocity.

--
Joe Riel

There is nothing specifically wrong with your arithmetic, nor with any
factual statement you have made (excluding you conclusions).
But you start with the erroneous assumption that *results from a
single race establish some sort of general rule.

And you "Translat[e] this to a hill climb" by simply waving your
hands.

For example, start over, using the results he
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-f...ologue/results

Simply following your guidelines roughly gives the *average* value of
a "place" being ~.07%. But note, how many places are "S.T." Note also
that .07% is less than two ounces for a 150 lb rider/15 lb bike.

A 7 minute prologue isn't the best predictor of differences in a typical
time trial.

I see, now you are trying to compensate by saying that you are going
to cherry pick the races that YOU think are relevant.

*Also, you have to be a bit careful when using the entire
field in a stage race.

I see, we are now going to start making subjective assessment about
the data in advance so that we can make sure our data matches the
result we are trying to impose. Nice!

*Some guys have no chance to win and won't
exactly give a maximum effort.

So you chose the OLYMPICS. Let's see *- Jamaican Bobsled team, Eddy
the Eagle. Remember them?

Which riders were those in the posted results?

*If you look at the top 20, guys who are
motivated, the average difference is 0.2%.

OK so take the top 10, top 20, top 50 of the prologue. What the heck,
figure out which guys YOU don't want to include.

Top 10 gives 0.23
Top 50 gives 0.11



I purposely omitted giving the derivation of the factor of 2 to 3
when translating to a hill climb. *That is a trivial computation that
comes from noting the relation of power to velocity.

You *seem to think that how you process the numbers validates the
underlying data or your underlying assumptions.
Shame on you! Really, really, sloppy!

Don't forget, when all is said and done, these averages are
for moving up *one place*.

No, these are these are averages are for moving up *one place* IF you
ritualistically apply the numbers in the manner (formula) you have
arbitrarily chosen. They change when applied even slightly
differently, for example selecting different ranges.

..07% "per place" will get you from 50th to 2nd,
or from that matter from 75th to 2nd.
..04% per place gets you from 75th to top 10.
..05% per place gets you from 50th to top 10.

So you still have a bunch of numbers that are relatively inconsistent
and meaningless.

DR