Dr ferrari on the Tour pt 2
Comments
-
Taken from another forum. Not to use as part of the discussion but thought it was interesting.Just been given Wiggins' power figures for his 2 fastest 10s by my mate Terry Dolan.
Comp record ride of 17-58 done a couple of years ago on Levens --- 448 watts (80kgs+ ?)
18-00 ride done recently (disallowed) on Levens --- 485 watts. (72kgs)
The latter is a phenomenal output for a guy who, just a few weeks later is up there with the world's top climbers in the Tour
Also, apparently you can see N Sorensen's power and he was putting out mid 400s for extended periods.
See here: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/200 ... files.aspx
Now this power stuff is confusing me. How can this fellow hold 400+W and not be suspicious when Contador's figures are. They weigh nearly the same and this guy is not a GC contender?!Contador is the Greatest0 -
Bronzie wrote:But what you cannot take into account with this is the rider's frontal areas and drag coefficients which come into effect during a flat time-trial.
Contador's is particularly small which is often why he attacks into headwinds.
He has been observed by Phil Liggett and others to time trial with similar abilities of Miguel Indurain.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Now Now Frenchie, your encrouching the holy grail, when i made a joke post about a brit and unbelievable it got removed after Colin complained.
I agree with your point though0 -
Sorensen's highest 20-min output for the entire Tour was set on the Ventoux where he averaged 398W - this would equate to a Functional Threshold Power (max sustainable power for 1 hour effort) of around 380W which ties in quite well with his stated FTP of 370W.frenchfighter wrote:Also, apparently you can see N Sorensen's power and he was putting out mid 400s for extended periods.
See here: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/200 ... files.aspx
Now this power stuff is confusing me. How can this fellow hold 400+W and not be suspicious when Contador's figures are. They weigh nearly the same and this guy is not a GC contender?!
380W @ 64kg (weight from Le Tour website - no idea how accurate this figure is) => 5.9W/Kg
Can't say what Contador's output is as no reliable power data is available (does he even race with a PM fitted to his bike?), but presumably his figures are better than this. Can't read much else into it than that though.0 -
The smaller a rider is the more susseptable they are to the wind and the more difficulty they will have riding into a headwind compared to a larger rider.frenchfighter wrote:Bronzie wrote:But what you cannot take into account with this is the rider's frontal areas and drag coefficients which come into effect during a flat time-trial.
Contador's is particularly small which is often why he attacks into headwinds.
.0 -
Mur X, please elaborate.
As far as I see it, a 100m2 sail will pick up significantly more wind than a 50m2 one.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Mur X, please elaborate.
As far as I see it, a 100m2 sail will pick up significantly more wind than a 50m2 one.
proportionaly a 10mph head wind has a higher effect on a smaller rider on a flat course because the overall power (key on a flat course ) is generaly higher on the bigger rider. Assuming similar drag etc0 -
Very, very simple. A smaller rider will have a higher surface area than a larger rider relative to how much they weigh. More surface area = more drag! Simple! An tiny iron filing will have much more SA than a 1kg iron weight even if the shape and density is the same - try dropping both of them from a height and see which one falls faster. It will be the 1kg weight of course, its the same thing with smaller objects in general in that they are affected by the wind much more due to their higher SA and therefore they have more drag.frenchfighter wrote:Mur X, please elaborate.
As far as I see it, a 100m2 sail will pick up significantly more wind than a 50m2 one.
It is this reason that larger guys tend to trounce smaller riders in flat TTs and especially into headwinds, they have less drag relative to the amount of power they are producing. Obviously climbing is different and it favours the riders with a higher power to weight ratio which are generally the small guys.
I thought everyone knew this stuff...
0 -
markwalker wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Mur X, please elaborate.
As far as I see it, a 100m2 sail will pick up significantly more wind than a 50m2 one.
proportionaly a 10mph head wind has a higher effect on a smaller rider on a flat course because the overall power (key on a flat course ) is generaly higher on the bigger rider. Assuming similar drag etc
But the drag won't be the same. It depends on the surface area going into the wind as a proportion of that guys weight.
I haven't done the maths, so don't know who the headwind would favour but Armstrong is feakishly broad by cyclists standards.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Murr X, among other reasons I come on this forum to find answers to questions I don't know. It is not a problem if me or anyone else doesn't know something, it is nothing to be ashamed of - what is wrong, is to not know something and pretend you do, or not to seek the information when it is there for the taking.
Therefore, it would have been nice if you could explain your point, which I have no understood, without the sense of smugness.
Just as there are things I don't understand that you do there will be things you wont that I do. Ask me about the mathematics behind financial valuation of options and futures for instance and we will see.Contador is the Greatest0 -
ff that's a bit precious. i don't sense smugness...0
-
Murr X wrote:The smaller a rider is the more susseptable they are to the wind and the more difficulty they will have riding into a headwind compared to a larger rider.
I think you might be misquoting. Isn't the idea that smaller riders get buffetted (spelling?) more in a gusting wind, so can't keep their rhythm, whereas bigger riders are "more stable".0 -
Timoid. wrote:Armstrong is feakishly broad by cyclists standards.
Did you see the head-on shot on the stage F.Schlek won when he rode in behind Nibali? Looked like David and Goliath! LA ain't huge so Nibali must be TINY!!0 -
Cadence Minge wrote:Timoid. wrote:Armstrong is feakishly broad by cyclists standards.
Did you see the head-on shot on the stage F.Schlek won when he rode in behind Nibali? Looked like David and Goliath! LA ain't huge so Nibali must be TINY!!
He has the physique of a true GT winner:
Contador is the Greatest0 -
It’s not just a matter of buffeting and losing rhythm. Nor just about smaller versus larger riders.GeorgeShaw wrote:
I think you might be misquoting. Isn't the idea that smaller riders get buffetted (spelling?) more in a gusting wind, so can't keep their rhythm, whereas bigger riders are "more stable".Murr X wrote:The smaller a rider is, the more susseptable they are to the wind and the more difficulty they will have riding into a headwind compared to a larger rider.
A headwind which is a moderate breeze, 24 km/h or 15 mph, will be equivalent to a load of about 0.15 KN (i.e. equivalent to 15 kg) pressing against a rider. This will vary a bit based on what surface area the rider exposes to the wind, but not that significantly, maybe 10% more for taller, broader riders, 10% less for smaller, narrower riders.
If you draw a vector diagram using 15 on the horizontal axis and the rider’s weight in kg on the vertical axis, the resultant diagonal shows you, in a sense, the degree to which the rider is being pushed back by the wind. If you do the same diagram for a rider of less weight, and the diagonal will be flatter, which means the lighter rider has to ‘fight’ more against the wind.
It’s possible the diagonals will coincide sometimes, perhaps for 60 kg rider and for a taller, broader 70 kg rider, meaning both suffer the same.
Lightweight riders with big exposed surface areas have to work hardest against wind. Not sure who would have suffered most in the recent Tour, someone who is lightweight and tall, but not narrow (so probably not the Schlecks, as thin, nor a tall, broad rider like Voigt, because of his ‘compensating’ weight)0 -
No, well not quite anyway. There does not have to be a gusting wind and it does not have anything to do with rhythm usually either. Even with no wind at all - just drag (ie a velodrome) it is still the case that smaller riders are generally at a disadvantage.GeorgeShaw wrote:Murr X wrote:The smaller a rider is the more susseptable they are to the wind and the more difficulty they will have riding into a headwind compared to a larger rider.
I think you might be misquoting. Isn't the idea that smaller riders get buffetted (spelling?) more in a gusting wind, so can't keep their rhythm, whereas bigger riders are "more stable".
Well said.knedlicky wrote:
It’s not just a matter of buffeting and losing rhythm. Nor just about smaller versus larger riders.GeorgeShaw wrote:
I think you might be misquoting. Isn't the idea that smaller riders get buffetted (spelling?) more in a gusting wind, so can't keep their rhythm, whereas bigger riders are "more stable".Murr X wrote:The smaller a rider is, the more susseptable they are to the wind and the more difficulty they will have riding into a headwind compared to a larger rider.
A headwind which is a moderate breeze, 24 km/h or 15 mph, will be equivalent to a load of about 0.15 KN (i.e. equivalent to 15 kg) pressing against a rider. This will vary a bit based on what surface area the rider exposes to the wind, but not that significantly, maybe 10% more for taller, broader riders, 10% less for smaller, narrower riders.
If you draw a vector diagram using 15 on the horizontal axis and the rider’s weight in kg on the vertical axis, the resultant diagonal shows you, in a sense, the degree to which the rider is being pushed back by the wind. If you do the same diagram for a rider of less weight, and the diagonal will be flatter, which means the lighter rider has to ‘fight’ more against the wind.
It’s possible the diagonals will coincide sometimes, perhaps for 60 kg rider and for a taller, broader 70 kg rider, meaning both suffer the same.
Believe me I certainly did not intend to come across as "smug" at all. I spent my time trying my best to explain to you how smaller riders are affected more by wind/drag than larger riders and that is all I intended to imply. If I sounded smug I apologise but I honestly did not mean to be.frenchfighter wrote:Murr X, among other reasons I come on this forum to find answers to questions I don't know. It is not a problem if me or anyone else doesn't know something, it is nothing to be ashamed of - what is wrong, is to not know something and pretend you do, or not to seek the information when it is there for the taking.
Therefore, it would have been nice if you could explain your point, which I have no understood, without the sense of smugness.
Just as there are things I don't understand that you do there will be things you wont that I do. Ask me about the mathematics behind financial valuation of options and futures for instance and we will see.
Murr X0 -
So the heavier and broader I am the better I cycle into the wind?
I don't believe that one bit, despite the good explanations on here. :shock:
Sorry.Cannondale Supersix 105 2013- summer bike - love it!
Cannondale CAAD12 - racing fun!
Trek Crockett 5 - CX bike, muddy fun!
Scott Scale 940 MTB XC racer.
__@
_`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)0
