Most climbing in a single day?

phreak

It's pretty easy to find records of the longest stages and so on, but much harder to find the stage with the most climbing in it.

I was watching the Arcalis stage the other day from the '97 Tour and they took 7 hours or so to complete it (Ullrich and all), so I figured that must have had an awful lot of climbing. No stats though that I could find.

Anyone have any ideas what the record might be?

BenderRodriguez

One of these stages might well hold the record:

http://plataformarecorridosciclistas.or ... -historia/

The Kennington Kaiser

Although the Arcalis stage was pretty hefty (6290m of climbing - http://www.bikemap.net/en/route/222162- ... a-arcalis/) the 2011 Giro stage 15 comes to mind as being absolutley insane in terms of climbing. I was at the roadside on the final climb and the riders were wrecked - 7960m according to this: http://www.bikemap.net/bs/route/787121- ... -stage-15/

sbbefc

stage 15 2011 giro?

pinno

OP: Are you suggesting that the TdF and the odd GT stage aside, that the stages are too short in terms of time?

I ask this because I wonder of it is having any affect on the speed of the peloton and (what seems to be) the resulting severity of the crashes. If the riders were expecting a drubbing, would the pace calm gown a bit? Does it need to?

phreak

pinarello001 wrote:

OP: Are you suggesting that the TdF and the odd GT stage aside, that the stages are too short in terms of time?

I ask this because I wonder of it is having any affect on the speed of the peloton and (what seems to be) the resulting severity of the crashes. If the riders were expecting a drubbing, would the pace calm gown a bit? Does it need to?

Oh no, nothing like that Just us amateurs often like to know the elevation climbed when we do granfondos and the like, but that kind of information is rarely shared on pro stages, so it got me wondering.

phreak

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

Although the Arcalis stage was pretty hefty (6290m of climbing - http://www.bikemap.net/en/route/222162- ... a-arcalis/) the 2011 Giro stage 15 comes to mind as being absolutley insane in terms of climbing. I was at the roadside on the final climb and the riders were wrecked - 7960m according to this: http://www.bikemap.net/bs/route/787121- ... -stage-15/

Oof, that is a tough day, and around 7.5 hours for the winners. Given how us cycling fans are suckers for stats, I wonder why this kind of thing isn't shared more often?

blazing_saddles

phreak wrote:

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

Although the Arcalis stage was pretty hefty (6290m of climbing - http://www.bikemap.net/en/route/222162- ... a-arcalis/) the 2011 Giro stage 15 comes to mind as being absolutley insane in terms of climbing. I was at the roadside on the final climb and the riders were wrecked - 7960m according to this: http://www.bikemap.net/bs/route/787121- ... -stage-15/

Oof, that is a tough day, and around 7.5 hours for the winners. Given how us cycling fans are suckers for stats, I wonder why this kind of thing isn't shared more often?

7 hour+ mountain stages in the Giro used to be the norm, not so long ago.
The famous 1998 duel between Pantani and Tonkov that ended up Plan di Montecampione took 7 and three quarter hours.
Only the first 27 riders got home in under 8 hours and this, at the height of the epo era.
Having said that, it was 240kms, but climbed only around 5000m

FJS

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

Although the Arcalis stage was pretty hefty (6290m of climbing - http://www.bikemap.net/en/route/222162- ... a-arcalis/) the 2011 Giro stage 15 comes to mind as being absolutley insane in terms of climbing. I was at the roadside on the final climb and the riders were wrecked - 7960m according to this: http://www.bikemap.net/bs/route/787121- ... -stage-15/

Online routeplanners often hugely overestimate the amount of climbing because of gps imprecision. That Arcalis stage was more like 5500m climbing. Still impressive. The Giro stage to Val di Fassa more like 5400m. Certainly no 8000 meter.

I reckon the 1992 TdF stage to Sestriere would be up there, if not on top (modern era)

blazing_saddles

FJS wrote:

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

Although the Arcalis stage was pretty hefty (6290m of climbing - http://www.bikemap.net/en/route/222162- ... a-arcalis/) the 2011 Giro stage 15 comes to mind as being absolutley insane in terms of climbing. I was at the roadside on the final climb and the riders were wrecked - 7960m according to this: http://www.bikemap.net/bs/route/787121- ... -stage-15/

Online routeplanners often hugely overestimate the amount of climbing because of gps imprecision. That Arcalis stage was more like 5500m climbing. Still impressive. The Giro stage to Val di Fassa more like 5400m. Certainly no 8000 meter.

I reckon the 1992 TdF stage to Sestriere would be up there, if not on top (modern era)

Another massively long (255km) stage. 5 climbs?

Have to say that this was a pretty impressive amount (5000m) of climbing for a 150km stage.
Another stage 15 of a Giro, this time 2008.

The Kennington Kaiser

@phreak and @FJS, not sure this necessarily puts it to bed but inrng.com has a good piece on this very subject which quotes the 2011 stage in the Giro as being 6320 vertical metres. He (or she) is probably a bit more reliable than some of the bike mapping websites, as you say. http://inrng.com/2011/04/romandie-vs-giro-ditalia/

This sort of thread really appeals to the geek in me.

frenchfighter

That Giro stage is my favourite stage of any race ever. Absolutely brilliant.

The Kennington Kaiser

It was good, but the sheer brutality numbed some of the riders and it became quite defensive at times. I know your favourite was at the height of his powers but the stage lacked a little nuance and drama - no-one really felt they could beat him although I think Nibali had a go on the descent didn't he? I pushed Michael Barry, who was inthe 'laughing group' at the time, about 100 metres up the road on the final climb and got a grin and a thanks from him. They all looked like dead men walking.

I'm quite intrigued by this question of the stage with the most climbing. If this piece in 'Peloton' magazine is accurate then the total climbing in the Sestrieres stage in 92 was 21,250ft (or 6440m) which just pips the Giro in 2011. Last para: http://pelotonmagazine.com/pages/from-i ... at-escape/

FJS

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

@phreak and @FJS, not sure this necessarily puts it to bed but inrng.com has a good piece on this very subject which quotes the 2011 stage in the Giro as being 6320 vertical metres. He (or she) is probably a bit more reliable than some of the bike mapping websites, as you say. http://inrng.com/2011/04/romandie-vs-giro-ditalia/

Of course we don't know where INRNG got his/her info, but I guess a bit over 6000 could be closer to reality.
I reckon the 1992 Sestriere stage was between 6500 and 7000m, but perhaps I'm underestimating that one too. Took Chiappucci 7hrs 45 min, the top 20 barely within 8 hours. It came after another 258 km mountain stage and was followed by a stage with Galibier, Crx de Fer and Alpe d'Huez. Ha!

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

This sort of thread really appeals to the geek in me.

Absolutely! 8)

bompington

FJS wrote:

Online routeplanners often hugely overestimate the amount of climbing because of gps imprecision.

Mathematically speaking, GPS imprecision can only underestimate the amount of climbing. GPS inaccuracy, on the other hand, could go either way.