In article <
[email protected]>,
MrBob <
[email protected]>
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Steve Gerdemann) wrote:
>
> > The time trial on the L'Alpe d'Huez got me wondering. Is it possible
> > for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep enough
> > slope? Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the
> > road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more
> > weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a
> > cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to
> > win.
> >
> >
> > Just wondering
> > Steve Gerdemann
>
> Many years ago I read that above 15% leads to walking being more
> efficient.
Sounds about right. A retired co-worker was an avid trail-runner and
one-time competitive cyclist (he regularly took his bicycle or jogged to
work until he retired, and he had a longer commute than me).
His analysis was that on the steepest trails (and 15% sounds about right
to me), the joggers could outrun the cyclists. At some point on certain
very steep and very technical descents, joggers can have an advantage
over most, but probably not all cyclists, if the descent is at least
theoretically navigable on a bike.
The issue there becomes whether or not the cyclist can descend without
dismounting. If they can, they probably win. If not, advantage: jogger.
Sadly, the famous Welsh Man v Horse v Bike race has had to temporarily
discontinue the v Bike part, apparently due to legal technicalities.
Look under June:
http://www.lafesta.co.uk/bizarre.html
The few published accounts I can find indicate that serious mountain
bikers have participated in this 22-mile race for a while (including
Jacquie Phelan), and the very best cyclists have beaten both man and
horse. It has been remarkably close, but reports I have indicate that no
solo runner has ever beaten the winning horse on this course, and there
is a #24,000 prize for any runner to do so.
Of course, You could construct a simple obstacle that would simply and
massively favor any one of rider, runner, or horse, thus demonstrating
that victory is very course dependent:
For horse to win, simply put one or more horse-jump (say, 5' or so?) in
the course. Horses seem to win on relatively short power courses where
the efficiency of a bike counts for little, and on obviously
horse-specific obstacles where bikes are at a disadvantage.
For the runner to win, put in one or more switchback climbs too steep
for a horse to easily navigate, or more simply, a 6' ladder to the top
of a cliff.
For the cyclist, a super-steep, non-technical descent will favor them
above all others, or a horse-unfriendly obstacle such as a ladder bridge
or even a cow crossing too wide to be jumped by a horse. In general, the
longer the course, the more the bicycle is favored. At the extreme
level, I don't think a horse and rider could outpace any stage of the
Tour de France, for example.
Horses for courses,
--
Ryan Cousineau,
[email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
