Climbing Trivia - Page 5

B.C. Cletta wrote:
>
> isn't this a HS physics problem? watts is watts.

Watts are watts but while there is a well-understood and validated model for how watts on a bicycle
translates into bicycle speed there is no corresponding model for how watts while running translates
into foot speed.

> Somebody, I think DiabloScott, wrote:
>> True there are a few rolling sections in there but that would tend to make the Diablo course
>> FASTER than predicted using the 95'/min estimate, no?

Sometimes an exaggerated example is telling. To manage 95'/min of elevation gain on a 2% (average)
grade, I figure you need to travel 54 miles per hour (again on average).

I don't think even Lance is up to that (on a bike, with an uphill course remember) - but posters
here show his stats on steep hills are in the 95'/min neighborhood.

Mark Janeba

On 23 Jan 2004 19:09:37 -0800, carlfogel@comcast.net (Carl Fogel)
wrote:
>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.

Another online converter for all sorts of measures:
http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDir...l/ConvertA.htm

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

You mean, you weren't guaranteed of that before?

>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
--
Rick Onanian

Mark Janeba <mandmlj@PLEASEcomDONTSPAMcast.net> wrote in message news:<3KAQb.110219$Rc4.793193@attbi_s54>...
> > Somebody, I think DiabloScott, wrote:
> >> True there are a few rolling sections in there but that would tend to make the Diablo course
> >> FASTER than predicted using the 95'/min estimate, no?
>
> Sometimes an exaggerated example is telling. To manage 95'/min of elevation gain on a 2% (average)
> grade, I figure you need to travel 54 miles per hour (again on average).
>
> I don't think even Lance is up to that (on a bike, with an uphill course remember) - but posters
> here show his stats on steep hills are in the 95'/min neighborhood.
>
> Mark Janeba

Dear Mark,

Probably wind drag explains much of the apparent discrepancy.

There's very little wind drag and resistance at low climbing speeds, but above 15 mph it becomes the
biggest factor in riding on flats and would be enormous at 54 mph, increasing at an exponential rate
(an exponent that I can never remember).

Without the huge increase in wind drag, Lance probably could manage such an impossible forward speed
on such a slight grade.

Carl Fogel

> 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).

That makes more sense, given that it took me about two hours for that same climb. Consistent with my
times up Alpe d'Huez anyway.

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

"Robert Chung" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote in message news:40123f30$0$17113$626a54ce@news.free.fr...
> 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).

Carl Fogel wrote:
> Mark Janeba <mandmlj@PLEASEcomDONTSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<3KAQb.110219$Rc4.793193@attbi_s54>...
>>Sometimes an exaggerated example is telling. To manage 95'/min of elevation gain on a 2% (average)
>>grade, I figure you need to travel 54 miles per hour (again on average).
>>
>>I don't think even Lance is up to that (on a bike, with an uphill course remember) - but posters
>>here show his stats on steep hills are in the 95'/min neighborhood.
>
> Probably wind drag explains much of the apparent discrepancy.
>
> There's very little wind drag and resistance at low climbing speeds, but above 15 mph it becomes
> the biggest factor in riding on flats and would be enormous at 54 mph, increasing at an
> exponential rate (an exponent that I can never remember).

Exactly so. Wind drag explains nearly all the discrepancy. The example simply shows that "max
climbing rate" is only relevant for computing times over steep, continuous climbs.

Mark Janeba