And if you believe that



S

Scott

Guest
I've got a bridge to sell you.

OK, time to call BS.

Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average
speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and
later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly
ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS.

Right.
 
On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've got a bridge to sell you.
>
> OK, time to call BS.
>
> Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average
> speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and
> later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly
> ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS.
>
> Right.


easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting
 
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've got a bridge to sell you.
>>
>> OK, time to call BS.
>>
>> Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average
>> speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and
>> later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly
>> ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS.
>>
>> Right.

>
>easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting


+1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker
 
On Jan 28, 6:43 pm, Keith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I've got a bridge to sell you.

>
> >> OK, time to call BS.

>
> >> Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average
> >> speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and
> >> later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly
> >> ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS.

>
> >> Right.

>
> >easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting

>
> +1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker


Excuse me, but how exactly does pointing out the absurdity in a claim
of 43+ mph for over 5k at the end of a 150+ km stage fighting through
crosswinds make me either an idiot or a troublemaker?

If they were going downhill (which apparently they don't have in
Qatar), maybe. If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they
were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.

If you think the reported speeds were accurate, consider this.
Assuming they were running a top gear of 53x11, they would have to do
over 115 rpm in that gear to even reach that speed. The power output
required to do that is something that only top sprinters can even do,
and no one maintains it for the time required to travel more than 3 or
4 hundred meters, not 5 thousand meters.

Unless, of course, they're all doping. Wait, that's it. No wonder
all but two of the Slipstream riders were over 8 minutes back.
 
On Jan 28, 8:43 pm, Keith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I've got a bridge to sell you.

>
> >> OK, time to call BS.

>
> >> Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average
> >> speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and
> >> later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly
> >> ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS.

>
> >> Right.

>
> >easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting

>
> +1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker


Well maybe. But I rather believe that it was correctly reported.
CyclingNews.com said the push came leading up to the 2nd sprint bonus.
That was on the road to Al Khor. If the wind was blowing from the
west, it would have been at their backs on that stretch.
 
On Jan 29, 10:27 am, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 6:43 pm, Keith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >On Jan 28, 6:29 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> I've got a bridge to sell you.

>
> > >> OK, time to call BS.

>
> > >> Articles on the 2nd stage of the Tour of Qatar discuss an average
> > >> speed of 35+ MPH for the first hour (not terribly unbelievable), and
> > >> later in the race a 5km or so section where Quickstep reportedly
> > >> ramped the speed up to 43+ MPH... in CROSSWINDS.

>
> > >> Right.

>
> > >easier to believe they interchanged mph for kph without converting

>
> > +1 , OP is an idiot or a troublemaker

>
> Excuse me, but how exactly does pointing out the absurdity in a claim
> of 43+ mph for over 5k at the end of a 150+ km stage fighting through
> crosswinds make me either an idiot or a troublemaker?
>
> If they were going downhill (which apparently they don't have in
> Qatar), maybe. If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they
> were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.
>
> If you think the reported speeds were accurate, consider this.
> Assuming they were running a top gear of 53x11, they would have to do
> over 115 rpm in that gear to even reach that speed. The power output
> required to do that is something that only top sprinters can even do,
> and no one maintains it for the time required to travel more than 3 or
> 4 hundred meters, not 5 thousand meters.
>
> Unless, of course, they're all doping. Wait, that's it. No wonder
> all but two of the Slipstream riders were over 8 minutes back.


It blew it apart because they were going at a blistering pace form the
get-go. The ones off the back were at their limit already and said so.
Only the ones with enough in reserve could take avantage of the
tailwind. Strategy.
 
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they
>were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.


Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields
exploding than still air or headwinds
 
On Jan 29, 4:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If they had screaming tailwinds, yes.  But, if they
> >were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.

>
> Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields
> exploding than still air or headwinds


Why do you conclude that?
 
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:33:25 -0800 (PST), Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 29, 4:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > If they had screaming tailwinds, yes.  But, if they
>> >were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.

>>
>> Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields
>> exploding than still air or headwinds

>
>Why do you conclude that?


Experience.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 29, 4:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If they had screaming tailwinds, yes.  But, if they
> > >were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.

> >
> > Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields
> > exploding than still air or headwinds

>
> Why do you conclude that?


Either because he's done it, or because he has a brain. Since it's JT, I
suspect the right answer is both.

Tailwinds reduce the advantage of a peloton versus a solo rider, and
confound the peloton in subtler ways. The lead riders are effectively
"sheltered" from the benefits of the tailwind, thus making the relative
efforts of the lead rider and the pack even more disparate than usual.
The effect is that a rider who jumps off the front of the pack can do so
with less effort than usual, while the rider who stays at the lead of
the pack has to put out more (relative) effort than usual.

There's also some daffy bunching-up effects, since the guys at the very
back of the pack are doing even less work than usual, and getting popped
off the back of the pack is slightly less consequential than usual, and
less likely since the ramp-up in drag is less than usual.

It may be easier to understand by examining the effect of a headwind:
the higher wind-speed means that the draft is more effective
(paceline/peloton drafting advantage rises rapidly with increasing
cyclist speeds, and a headwind effectively increases the "airspeed," to
borrow a flying term). The peloton compensates with shorter pulls at the
front (or, alternatively, the lead riders are just burning more matches;
either way, spending time in the lead is especially costly), and the
cost of trying an escape is higher, because the power-increase required
to solo off is greater.

I punched in some numbers into this (admittedly crude) calculator:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics1.html

Start with a 150 pound cyclist (obviously a rouleur type) and 0 slope.

25 mph, 0 wind, 184 Watts required
27 mph, 0 wind, 258 Watts required.

Now, some wind:

24 mph, 10 mph wind, 462 Watts required. Wow.
26 mph, 10 mph wind, 548 Watts required.

And of course, you probably can still get to 24 mph in a heavy headwind,
because the guys at the front take short (hard) pulls, and rest in the
pack, where the draft largely shelters you from the headwind. In other
words, your at-the-front efforts are very high, but you still have
nearly the same (minimal) power needs while you're resting in the draft.
So the pack doesn't slow down a lot, but more people contribute to the
work, or you might get a little less rest, but it feels great.

Humans are good at sprint-rest cycles like this. Lots of pro riders can
do 1-minute 500-Watt efforts every ten minutes for hours at a time. But
Willett notes that 376 Watts for an hour is good enough for a gold-medal
Olympic TT.

Compare to a solo attacker in a headwind, who must take on a
all of the burden of this sprint-level effort, and doesn't get to rest.
In other words, they're doing that solo TT. So let's go straight out and
assume that they're putting out 376 Watts. In a 10 mph headwind, that
equates to a solo speed of about 21-22 mph.

Any guesses as to how good a 10-man paceline would have to be to
maintain 23 mph (~37 km/h) in a 10 mph headwind? I don't have a
calculator for it, but this sounds like a Cat 3 effort. And they could
catch David Millar trying to solo away from them.

Okay, so the Cat 3's are clearly doping, (cf Millar Line), and even
TT-specialist Millar probably has enough sprint (or at least 10-minute
power) to take the victory, but a serious solo effort will never work in
these conditions.

So that's for a head wind. A tail wind has roughly the opposite effect.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
 
On Jan 29, 6:04 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>
>  Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 4:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > If they had screaming tailwinds, yes.  But, if they
> > > >were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.

>
> > > Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields
> > > exploding than still air or headwinds

>
> > Why do you conclude that?

>
> Either because he's done it, or because he has a brain. Since it's JT, I
> suspect the right answer is both.
>
> Tailwinds reduce the advantage of a peloton versus a solo rider, and
> confound the peloton in subtler ways. The lead riders are effectively
> "sheltered" from the benefits of the tailwind, thus making the relative
> efforts of the lead rider and the pack even more disparate than usual.
> The effect is that a rider who jumps off the front of the pack can do so
> with less effort than usual, while the rider who stays at the lead of
> the pack has to put out more (relative) effort than usual.
>
> There's also some daffy bunching-up effects, since the guys at the very
> back of the pack are doing even less work than usual, and getting popped
> off the back of the pack is slightly less consequential than usual, and
> less likely since the ramp-up in drag is less than usual.
>
> It may be easier to understand by examining the effect of a headwind:
> the higher wind-speed means that the draft is more effective
> (paceline/peloton drafting advantage rises rapidly with increasing
> cyclist speeds, and a headwind effectively increases the "airspeed," to
> borrow a flying term). The peloton compensates with shorter pulls at the
> front (or, alternatively, the lead riders are just burning more matches;
> either way, spending time in the lead is especially costly), and the
> cost of trying an escape is higher, because the power-increase required
> to solo off is greater.
>
> I punched in some numbers into this (admittedly crude) calculator:
>
> http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics1.html
>
> Start with a 150 pound cyclist (obviously a rouleur type) and 0 slope.
>
> 25 mph, 0 wind, 184 Watts required
> 27 mph, 0 wind, 258 Watts required.
>
> Now, some wind:
>
> 24 mph, 10 mph wind, 462 Watts required. Wow.
> 26 mph, 10 mph wind, 548 Watts required.
>
> And of course, you probably can still get to 24 mph in a heavy headwind,
> because the guys at the front take short (hard) pulls, and rest in the
> pack, where the draft largely shelters you from the headwind. In other
> words, your at-the-front efforts are very high, but you still have
> nearly the same (minimal) power needs while you're resting in the draft.
> So the pack doesn't slow down a lot, but more people contribute to the
> work, or you might get a little less rest, but it feels great.
>
> Humans are good at sprint-rest cycles like this. Lots of pro riders can
> do 1-minute 500-Watt efforts every ten minutes for hours at a time. But
> Willett notes that 376 Watts for an hour is good enough for a gold-medal
> Olympic TT.
>
> Compare to a solo attacker in a headwind, who must take on a
> all of the burden of this sprint-level effort, and doesn't get to rest.
> In other words, they're doing that solo TT. So let's go straight out and
> assume that they're putting out 376 Watts. In a 10 mph headwind, that
> equates to a solo speed of about 21-22 mph.
>
> Any guesses as to how good a 10-man paceline would have to be to
> maintain 23 mph (~37 km/h) in a 10 mph headwind? I don't have a
> calculator for it, but this sounds like a Cat 3 effort. And they could
> catch David Millar trying to solo away from them.
>
> Okay, so the Cat 3's are clearly doping, (cf Millar Line), and even
> TT-specialist Millar probably has enough sprint (or at least 10-minute
> power) to take the victory, but a serious solo effort will never work in
> these conditions.
>
> So that's for a head wind. A tail wind has roughly the opposite effect.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau [email protected]://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.  
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing


To conclude that a tailwind helps a solo rider more than it helps a
pack assumes that the tailwind is actually pushing you, when in fact
the benefit of a tailwind is more that the air is 'getting out of your
way'. If that's true, then a tailwind moves the wind out of the way
of the pack just as much as it does a solo rider and shouldn't provide
any additional benefit to either a solo rider or a pack.

Using that calculator that you referenced, and using the reported
speed of 43 mph, at 0 mph windspeed it calculates a requirement for
934W. A 5 mph headwind ups the power requirement to 1300, or an
additional 366. Plugging in a 5 mph tailwind results in a power
requirement of 645W, or a reduction of 291W. Up it to a 10 mph
tailwind and the power requirement drops to 422W. I don't know if
these numbers are accurate, but lets assume they are and apply your
thoughts to this.

If a tailwind supports a solo rider more than it does a pack, then how
does the pack burn riders off the back? The lead riders in the pack
supposedly aren't getting the full benefit of the tailwind, while the
riders on the back, by your logic, should be riding their brakes so as
to not slam into the slower riders in front of them (okay, I
exagerated a bit).

The race incident in question was not a situation where a solo rider,
or even a small group, went clear. It was a roughly 30-man group that
just left all but 7 guys behind.

I've experienced what you and JT describe, so I know it happens. The
reason why I asked why he concluded what he did was to see why he
thinks it happens. I don't know why it happens, but I'm not persuaded
that it was a tailwind that did it. Besides, my original point was
that it seems illogical that they were doing 43 mph UNLESS there was a
tailwind (according to your calculator, it needed to be around 10 mph
to reduce the wattage requirement to a reasonable level). Maybe there
was a tailwind, but it wasn't reported in the article I read.
 
On Jan 29, 4:33 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), Scott

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If they had screaming tailwinds, yes. But, if they
> > >were doing 43+ in a tailwind, it wouldn't have blown the field apart.

>
> > Racing in strong tailswinds are brutal - much more condusive to fields
> > exploding than still air or headwinds

>
> Why do you conclude that?


Tailwind reduces the relative benefit of drafting. It's
paradoxically like hills in that respect. So if some strong
people take turns pulling and you're weaker, you get
popped off the back because sitting on isn't helping
as much as it usually would. Basically the reason
for this is that if you're going 40 mph in a 20 mph
tailwind, you're burning power on rolling resistance,
which drafting doesn't help you with. Add going up a
small rise, and you explode.

Watching Paul Sherwen comment on races, he'll
talk about how a cross-tailwind is brutal because it
lets the strong teams wind it up really fast and
make everybody suffer. I haven't ever raced in a race
with a full road width echelon, so I'm taking his word
for it. I have suffered mightily in tailwinds even on
training rides though. Of course, that might also have
to do with my chronic Wattage Deficit Disorder.

Ben
 
On Jan 29, 10:05 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>

> Watching Paul Sherwen comment on races, he'll
> talk about how a cross-tailwind is brutal because it
> lets the strong teams wind it up really fast and
> make everybody suffer. I haven't ever raced in a race
> with a full road width echelon, so I'm taking his word
> for it. I have suffered mightily in tailwinds even on
> training rides though. Of course, that might also have
> to do with my chronic Wattage Deficit Disorder.


any strong wind makes the race very tacticial. i love windy races for
that reason.

also echelons are amazingly efficient. the way i imagine it is: when
you draft you are riding in the low pressure zone of the rider in
front of you. the size of that hole is proportional to the cross
sectional area of that rider seen from the front. in a crosswind that
hole you're riding is is roughly in proportion to the size of the
rider seen from the side.

also when there's a echelon, the riders who are strung out in the
gutter behind the echelon will get popped because they're not getting
a draft.
 
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:07:27 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In the most impressive display of team tactics I can recall, the CSC
>riders TT'd through the head of the echelon in a single gutter-line at
>what must have been redline power, then as soon as they were clear of
>the lead echelon, reformed as an echelon and powered away from the pack,
>detonating it in the process.
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/road.php?id=road/2005/jan05/qatar05/qatar053
>
>The attack (and subsequent pack-breaking tactics) are so effective that
>the decisive 7-man break consists of 5 (!!) CSC riders, and they finish
>1-2-4-5-7, properly neutralizing Freddy Rodriguez into sixth place.
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/diaries/marcopolo/?id=marcopolo050
>5
>
>The move is so effective that the eighth-place rider comes in 5 minutes
>behind, and at the finish line two days later, the GC podium is a CSC
>sweep.
>
>I've seen video of the decisive move, but can't find it now.


I would love that. Found the race that started this thread on Youtube
but they only have footage of the last K plus an interview (good one)
with Boonen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZF0Kbx0wRg

JT
 
On Jan 30, 11:18 am, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree that pros are less likely to screw up the headwind scenario,
> but the 2001 Paris-Tours races is a great example of when they did.
> First two riders, then one (Virenque) held off a pack in a strong
> headwind.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/oct01/paristours/results.shtml
>
> My point is that you can attack successfully in seemingly unfavorable
> condition and when you do the unexpected, the pack may not know how to
> react.


He won that one a l'insu de son plein gre.
 
On Jan 30, 12:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:18 am, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I agree that pros are less likely to screw up the headwind scenario,
> > but the 2001 Paris-Tours races is a great example of when they did.
> > First two riders, then one (Virenque) held off a pack in a strong
> > headwind.

>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/oct01/paristours/results.shtml

>
> > My point is that you can attack successfully in seemingly unfavorable
> > condition and when you do the unexpected, the pack may not know how to
> > react.

>
> He won that one a l'insu de son plein gre.


Neither google translate or I have any idea what you're trying to say.
Unbeknownst to its full retraction?
 
"Bret" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f4d8c235-2587-4982-a959-4230d8e515c0@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I agree that pros are less likely to screw up the headwind scenario,
> but the 2001 Paris-Tours races is a great example of when they did.
> First two riders, then one (Virenque) held off a pack in a strong
> headwind.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/oct01/paristours/results.shtml
>
> My point is that you can attack successfully in seemingly unfavorable
> condition and when you do the unexpected, the pack may not know how to
> react.


Bret, can you edit the misc stuff out of your postings instead of quoting
everything that's there?
 
On Jan 30, 1:57 pm, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > He won that one a l'insu de son plein gre.

>
> Neither google translate or I have any idea what you're trying to say.


Didn't make any sense when Virenque said it, either. It's a garbled
combination of two phrases which sorta means, "unbeknownst to my full
and willing participation." He used it when, after two years of
vigorous denials, he admitted to doping while with Festina but
explained it as "a l'insu de mon plein gre," that is, accidentally and
involuntarily.