Climbing Trivia - Page 4

> Pantani's record climb of Mt. Ventoux was done in about 25 minutes, giving a climb rate of 95
> feet/minute. Pretty close. Ventoux is windy and has a variable grade. A road with less wind and a
> more consistent grade should produce an even higher climb rate.

Was his time really just 25 minutes? That is *so* depressing! Also curious. On Alpe d'Huez, my time
is under 2x the record, but on Ventoux, I'd be lucky to climb it in under 90 minutes! 25 minutes
boggles the mind.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

trg wrote:
> Mark Janeba wrote:
>
>>Terry Morse wrote:
>>>The question came up on a ride the other day: can one climb stairs on foot faster than on a
>>>road bike?
>>
>>I find it difficult to get enough traction on stairs with my road
>
> Why are you using your road bike? You need to use a MTB!

Oh, sorry, he didn't ask about an MTB.

Mark "always answer the question asked" Janeba

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Was [Pantani's] time really just 25 minutes? That is *so* depressing! Also curious. On Alpe
> d'Huez, my time is under 2x the record, but on Ventoux, I'd be lucky to climb it in under 90
> minutes! 25 minutes boggles the mind.

Rest contented, Mike. I think that 25 minutes measurement must have been for the upper portion of
Ventoux. The complete climb from Bedoin is reportedly 5251 ft., and Armstrong did it on 2002 in 58
minutes. That's a climb rate of 90.5 ft/min. According to Chris Carmichael, Lance averaged 4 beats
below his lactate threshold on the climb, so he could have gone faster.

Hey, I can do 90 ft/minute. For about a minute.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Terry Morse wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> Was [Pantani's] time really just 25 minutes? That is *so* depressing! Also curious. On Alpe
>> d'Huez, my time is under 2x the record, but on Ventoux, I'd be lucky to climb it in under 90
>> minutes! 25 minutes boggles the mind.
>
> Rest contented, Mike. I think that 25 minutes measurement must have been for the upper portion of
> Ventoux. The complete climb from Bedoin is reportedly 5251 ft., and Armstrong did it on 2002 in 58
> minutes. That's a climb rate of 90.5 ft/min. According to Chris Carmichael, Lance averaged 4 beats
> below his lactate threshold on the climb, so he could have gone faster.
>
> Hey, I can do 90 ft/minute. For about a minute.

Look about three-quarters of the way down to the page, where VAM is discussed:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20.../?id=ferrari03

Dave Lehnen <dclehnen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<wlTPb.87509$6y6.1760762@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Dave Kahn wrote:

> > Not necessarily. A podgy runner in a devil costume and carrying a trident can keep pace with the
> > strongest climbers of the Tour de France over some short steep sections.

> So an out-of-shape guy can go faster in a short sprint than a great rider who has been riding for
> hours that day, and likely for many previous days.

This is not really relevant. A good club cyclist, fresh and nicely warmed up, starting at the bottom
of a major climb just before the pros got there would be beaten out of sight by them.

> Likewise, almost anybody could outrun the best marathon runners, when the marathoner is
> maintaining his pace and the other guy is sprinting some short distance.

Sprint at sub 5 minute mile pace? Almost anybody? I don't think so. Some untrained people, yes.

> All this shows is that ordinary people can produce more power for short anerobic efforts than
> great athletes can maintain for hours.

Indeed, a world class sprinter (runner, I mean) can keep pace with the peloton on the flat for a
short burst. What the Tour's running spectators really show, I think, is that there is some point at
which a hill becomes so steep that you can run up it faster than you can ride. Cyclo-cross
competitors tend to run up steep sections that are still technically rideable. They do so not
because they couldn't ride up if they chose to, but because it's faster to carry your bike and run.

--
Dave...

Dave Kahn wrote:
> Dave Lehnen <dclehnen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<wlTPb.87509$6y6.1760762@bgtnsc05-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Dave Kahn wrote:
>
>
>>>Not necessarily. A podgy runner in a devil costume and carrying a trident can keep pace with the
>>>strongest climbers of the Tour de France over some short steep sections.
>
>
>>So an out-of-shape guy can go faster in a short sprint than a great rider who has been riding for
>>hours that day, and likely for many previous days.
>
>
> This is not really relevant. A good club cyclist, fresh and nicely warmed up, starting at the
> bottom of a major climb just before the pros got there would be beaten out of sight by them.
>
Of course he would be beaten very badly. How is this relevant? Now you're comparing aerobic efforts
of a fresh club cyclist who can sustain maybe 250 - 300 watts to a pro who can maintain about 400,
even on a mid-tour climb. Let the club cyclist sprint uphill for maybe 10 or 15 seconds, and he'll
be faster than the pro's average climb speed. The fat guy in the devil costume is running in only
very short bursts. The pro cyclists aren't going to do a mid-climb sprint to drop him.

>
>>Likewise, almost anybody could outrun the best marathon runners, when the marathoner is
>>maintaining his pace and the other guy is sprinting some short distance.
>
>
> Sprint at sub 5 minute mile pace? Almost anybody? I don't think so. Some untrained people, yes.
>
The best marathoners average about 13 mph, an easy speed for a healthy non-runner to hit for a
few seconds. Although you're right that there are plenty of people who are in such bad condition
they couldn't.

>
>>All this shows is that ordinary people can produce more power for short anerobic efforts than
>>great athletes can maintain for hours.
>
>
> Indeed, a world class sprinter (runner, I mean) can keep pace with the peloton on the flat for a
> short burst. What the Tour's running spectators really show, I think, is that there is some
> point at which a hill becomes so steep that you can run up it faster than you can ride. Cyclo-
> cross competitors tend to run up steep sections that are still technically rideable. They do so
> not because they couldn't ride up if they chose to, but because it's faster to carry your bike
> and run.
>
No argument there is a point for any given person where running up a very steep slope is faster than
cycling. The running spectators don't show this, though, since they are running for a few seconds,
not for hours. These same spectators would not be passing the bikes if doing the whole climbs, even
the steepest ones on the grand tours.

Dave Lehnen

From rec.sport.unicycling 10/5/03:

"Wow, what a great day. It was a textbook example of PERFECT weather for the 22nd Mt Diablo
Challenge this morning. 'The Mt Diablo Challenge' (http://www.mtdiablochallenge.com/) is a nearly
100% uphill road race, about 11 miles, about 3300' (1000m) of climbing. No cars and GREAT views. 7
unicyclists and at least 700 bicyclists showed up this year."

"The (unofficial) results for the unicyclists:

1) Glenn Drummond - new world record, approx 1:13. He was delayed at least 30 seconds in a crash
near the start too. Glenn was riding a carbon fiber 36" unicycle he made with 165mm cranks and
shaved down Crupi pedals. He has drilled 2000 holes in the Airfoil rim AND gone tubeless. His
seat and Reeder-style handle are a single piece of carbon fiber. He runs 14ga spokes meaning that
there is only one item from Coker on his cycle - the tire. All this attention to weight results
in a complete cycle at 13.5 pounds! I think he could lose a couple more ounces by shaving the
tire too. It's not just the ultra-light unicycle - his incredible fitness is what allowed him to
break the record by approx 4 minutes. WOW! Just call him Mr Anaerobic. Also he's over 40, so old
guys CAN crank."

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:52:37 GMT, DiabloScott <NOSPAMdiabloscott@terra.es> wrote:

>From: http://www.bikediablo.com/question42001.html
>4) What is the course record for road, mountain bike, tandem, & unicycle ? The course record for a
> road bike was set by professional bicycle racer Mike Engleman in 1990 with a winning time of 45
> minutes and 20 seconds. The second fastest time was set in 1991 by Mauricio Prado with a time of
> 46 minutes and 28 seconds. This is the fastest known time for a non-professional rider. The
> course records for mountain bikers and tandem bicyclists are not positive. We think that a
> mountain biker has finished in about 50 minutes and a tandem couple in about 53 minutes. The
> course record for a unicyclist is 1 hour and 21 minutes. This record was set by Gary Kanuch in
> 2000. It is unlikely much time will be taken off this record without a larger wheel or a
> "gearing up" of the unicycle.

Robert Chung wrote:

> Look about three-quarters of the way down to the page, where VAM is discussed:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20.../?id=ferrari03

Thanks for the link:

VAM (Vm/h) Metres Per Hour (Vm/h)

1800+ Vm/h: Lance Armstrong - and Pantani of olden days 1650-1800 Vm/h: Top 10 / Tour de France GC or mountain
stage winner. 1450-1650 Vm/H: Top 20 / Tour de France GC; top 20 on tough mountain stage. 1300-1450 Vm/h:
Finishing Tour de France mountain stages in peloton 1100-1300 Vm/h: The Autobus Crew

1800 m/h is 98 ft/s, right in the same range as stair climber records. 1100 m/h is 60 ft/s,
something that we mere mortals can aspire to.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Peter <prathman@attbi.com> wrote in
news:OF1Qb.101732$Rc4.682401@attbi_s54:

> Please watch the attributions. If you clip all of my words then you should also remove the lines
> indicating that I wrote the paragraph that follows.
>
Hummm thought I did that...need not worry, I don't think you are too severly compromised.

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<tmorse-1D2557.15272521012004@news.covad.net>...
> The question came up on a ride the other day: can one climb stairs on foot faster than on a
> road bike?
>
> The answer I found, after some googling, is that the winner is too close to call. The fastest time
> to climb the Empire State Building to the 86th floor is just under 10 minutes, which is a climb
> rate of 100 feet/minute.
>
> Pantani's record climb of Mt. Ventoux was done in about 25 minutes, giving a climb rate of 95
> feet/minute. Pretty close. Ventoux is windy and has a variable grade. A road with less wind and a
> more consistent grade should produce an even higher climb rate.

isn't this a HS physics problem? watts is watts.

bc_cletta@yahoo.com (B.C. Cletta) wrote in message news:<add863d6.0401231952.1e26a8a3@posting.google.com>...
> Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<tmorse-
> 1D2557.15272521012004@news.covad.net>...
> > The question came up on a ride the other day: can one climb stairs on foot faster than on a
> > road bike?
> >
> > The answer I found, after some googling, is that the winner is too close to call. The fastest
> > time to climb the Empire State Building to the 86th floor is just under 10 minutes, which is a
> > climb rate of 100 feet/minute.
> >
> > Pantani's record climb of Mt. Ventoux was done in about 25 minutes, giving a climb rate of 95
> > feet/minute. Pretty close. Ventoux is windy and has a variable grade. A road with less wind and
> > a more consistent grade should produce an even higher climb rate.
>
> isn't this a HS physics problem? watts is watts.
Dear B.C.,

Watts is watts, but like many real-world questions, this one has all sorts of odd possible
complications.

Imagine the same 170-pound person doing both the riding and the running. On a 17-pound bike, he'll
have to raise an extra 10% in terms of weight.

There's also a small wind drag increase from the bicycle. It's very little at such low speeds,
but the drag from even a feather-light inflated balloon model of a bicycle would slow a runner
down a bit.

(Stop me before I propose timing my brother-in-law the marathon runner, with and without a pair of
water-wings.)

Then there's the big question of what happens when steepness increases past the normal grade for a
bicycle. Runners and walkers can go up grades that may well not be possible to pedal.

I gather that the bicycle stair-climbers are hopping and balancing, not grinding. Throwing yourself
and a bike into the air repeatedly (and coming down) means actually lifting the weight far more than
just walking steadily uphill. Jump up, lose height, come down, fight for balance--I get tired just
thinking about it.

In any case, it's hard to find a nice set of figures showing increasingly steep hills and times for
either the same person (imperfect because the same person rarely does as well both running and
walking) or for the best in the world at each sport (still imperfect because the best riders in the
world often do climbs, but the best runners usually concentrate on marathons, not on what they would
consider weird climbs).

With a shallow enough climb, the bicycle seems to win (though we bicyclists boggle at considering
Mt. Washington or Mt. Ventoux shallow).

With a set of stairs up a building, the runner seems to win. (The Empire State Building's stairs are
steeper than Mt. Ventoux's bicycle route.)

Most of the thread is wondering at what point things shift and why. Naturally, we're much more
polite than Mr. Flannery and Mr. Morehouse:

http://www.gutenberg.net/etext99/pgpgs10.txt

"Pigs Is Pigs!"

Carl Fogel

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:32:53 GMT, hbaker1@pipeline.com wrote:
>carbon fiber 36" unicycle he made with 165mm cranks and shaved down Crupi pedals. He has drilled
>2000 holes in the Airfoil rim AND gone tubeless.

Er...how do you drill holes in a rim and use a tubeless tire at the same time?

>fiber. He runs 14ga spokes meaning that there is only one item from Coker on his cycle - the tire.
>All this attention to weight results in a complete cycle at 13.5 pounds!

That sounds like too much! I mean, a unicycle should weigh HALF of a bicycle, right? One of my
bicycles weighs under 20 pounds (or did when I bought it, anyway), and people with more money to
spend (and lighter loads on their bikes) have bicycles weighing 16 pounds or less. In fact, the
m2racer company has a racing bike that they claim weighs under 10 pounds...they should be able to
create an 8 pound unicycle for him.

http://www.m2racer.com/info.php

I wonder how light that bike would sans derailers/shifters/etc, as a single speed. In fact, go
fixed, and remove brakes; instant 5 pound track bike, eh?

>I think he could lose a couple more ounces by shaving the tire too.

That sounds like a good way to get up a mountain.

Shave body, wear less clothes, urinate before riding, eat less the day before...you can really get
rid of some grams!
--
Rick Onanian

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<tmorse-913E4A.08255923012004@news.covad.net>...
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
> > Look about three-quarters of the way down to the page, where VAM is discussed:
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20.../?id=ferrari03
>
> Thanks for the link:
>
> VAM (Vm/h) Metres Per Hour (Vm/h)
>
> 1800+ Vm/h: Lance Armstrong - and Pantani of olden days 1650-1800 Vm/h: Top 10 / Tour de France GC or
> mountain stage winner. 1450-1650 Vm/H: Top 20 / Tour de France GC; top 20 on tough mountain stage. 1300-1450
> Vm/h: Finishing Tour de France mountain stages in peloton 1100-1300 Vm/h: The Autobus Crew
>
> 1800 m/h is 98 ft/s, right in the same range as stair climber records. 1100 m/h is 60 ft/s,
> something that we mere mortals can aspire to.

Dear Terry,

Well, in baseball pitching, yes, we mere mortals can aspire to a 60 ft/s, which is about 41 mph.

Sixty feet per minute is undoubtedly what you meant, about one foot climbed per second.

Only someone who makes as many innocent typos as I do should point this out. I use this page to
check whenever I'm not calculating in the familiar furlongs per fortnight:

http://members.aol.com/javawizard/numbers.html

It instantly converts whatever you type to dozens of other measurements to about ten places.

Now I'm guaranteed that someone will read my idle chatter in hopes of catching me out.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel wrote:

> Well, in baseball pitching, yes, we mere mortals can aspire to a 60 ft/s, which is about 41 mph.
>
> Sixty feet per minute is undoubtedly what you meant, about one foot climbed per second.

Yes, thanks for catching that.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Terry Morse wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> Was [Pantani's] time really just 25 minutes? That is *so* depressing! Also curious. On Alpe
>> d'Huez, my time is under 2x the record, but on Ventoux, I'd be lucky to climb it in under 90
>> minutes! 25 minutes boggles the mind.
>
> Rest contented, Mike. I think that 25 minutes measurement must have been for the upper portion of
> Ventoux. The complete climb from Bedoin is reportedly 5251 ft., and Armstrong did it on 2002 in 58
> minutes.

I think Jonathan Vaughters may still hold the record for a Ventoux ascent, at 56:50. He did it
during the TT for the 1999 Dauphine, from Bedoin (roughly, 1600m elevation gain in a tad more
than 21 km).