Re: Hincapie In Spots?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Kurgan Gringioni, Sep 13, 2004.

  1. B. Lafferty wrote:
    >
    > It is interesting that the difference between the average of the

    three best
    > times pre-1991 (44.96min) and the average time post-1991 (38.6min) is

    about
    > 8.5%. It might actually be more if we factoring the next 10 fastest

    pre-1991
    > climbs. That would certainly seem to be within the realm of what can

    be
    > expected with the use of blood boosting or EPO use. [Injections of

    EPO are
    > even more effective: athletes can expect enhancements in endurance
    > performance a massive 5% or more (Sawka et al., 1996; Birkeland et

    al.,
    > 2000). ]
    >
    > Then again, maybe they all just got their leg extensions perfected
    > post-1991.




    Dumbass -


    I thought the point we were discussing was "big guys being able to
    climb" as evidence of EPO use.
    No one on that list is "big", with the exception of Indurain.
     
    Tags:


  2. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > No one on that list is "big", with the exception of Indurain.
    >


    You're wrong yet again, Henry.

    Weight per inch post-1991:

    2.37 Armstrong
    2.32 Indurain
    2.23 Ullrich
    2.23 Riis
    2.1 Zulle

    Compare that with climbers, eg:

    1.83 Pantani
    1.92 Hampsten
    1.89 Van Impe

    And then riders pre-1991 who were slower on the Alpe:

    2.1 Fignon
    2.1 Lemond
     
  3. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    Heres' the list with Mayo included:
    Weight per inch post-1991:

    2.37 Armstrong
    2.32 Indurain
    2.23 Ullrich
    2.23 Riis
    2.18 Mayo
    2.1 Zulle

    Compare that with climbers, eg:

    1.83 Pantani
    1.92 Hampsten
    1.89 Van Impe

    And then riders pre-1991 who were slower on the Alpe:

    2.1 Fignon
    2.1 Lemond


    --
    Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991
     
  4. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > Weight per inch post-1991:


    [snip]

    Calculate W/kg.
     
  5. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> Weight per inch post-1991:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > Calculate W/kg.
    >
    >


    I've done the conversion from meters and kilograms to inches and pounds.
    What's your point?
     
  6. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> B. Lafferty wrote:
    >>> Weight per inch post-1991:

    >>
    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> Calculate W/kg.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I've done the conversion from meters and kilograms to inches and pounds.
    > What's your point?


    Good climbers come in many different BMIs, but a narrow band of W/kg. If
    the only thing that determined good climbing ability was being light for
    height then my 5-year-old daughter would be a better climber than I. In
    addition, because CdA doesn't scale linearly with height and speeds on
    some power climbs are high enough to make aero drag a significant (or at
    least, non-negligible) component of total drag, there is a slight
    advantage to being a tiny bit bigger for a constant W/kg.

    BTW, although I use heights and weights from the official TdF site here:
    http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf04-bmi.png
    and here
    http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf97-bmi.png
    those weights are probably only ballpark.
     
  7. Amit

    Amit Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    > > No one on that list is "big", with the exception of Indurain.
    > >

    >
    > You're wrong yet again, Henry.
    >
    > Weight per inch post-1991:
    >
    > 2.37 Armstrong
    > 2.32 Indurain
    > 2.23 Ullrich
    > 2.23 Riis
    > 2.1 Zulle
    >
    > Compare that with climbers, eg:
    >
    > 1.83 Pantani
    > 1.92 Hampsten
    > 1.89 Van Impe
    >
    > And then riders pre-1991 who were slower on the Alpe:
    >
    > 2.1 Fignon
    > 2.1 Lemond


    First of all, I'm not sure what this demonstrates, since absolute
    weight is a more meaningful measure than this.

    Second, these numbers are debatable. I have 72-73 kg for Armstrong at
    1.78 cm, 71 kg for Ullrich at 1.83 cm and 68 kg for Lemond (at I'd
    guess 5'9").

    so :

    Ullrich 2.17
    Armstrong 2.28
    Lemond 2.17
     
  8. Marty

    Marty Guest

    "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > > No one on that list is "big", with the exception of Indurain.
    > > >

    > >
    > > You're wrong yet again, Henry.
    > >
    > > Weight per inch post-1991:
    > >
    > > 2.37 Armstrong
    > > 2.32 Indurain
    > > 2.23 Ullrich
    > > 2.23 Riis
    > > 2.1 Zulle
    > >
    > > Compare that with climbers, eg:
    > >
    > > 1.83 Pantani
    > > 1.92 Hampsten
    > > 1.89 Van Impe
    > >
    > > And then riders pre-1991 who were slower on the Alpe:
    > >
    > > 2.1 Fignon
    > > 2.1 Lemond

    >
    > First of all, I'm not sure what this demonstrates, since absolute
    > weight is a more meaningful measure than this.
    >
    > Second, these numbers are debatable. I have 72-73 kg for Armstrong at
    > 1.78 cm, 71 kg for Ullrich at 1.83 cm and 68 kg for Lemond (at I'd
    > guess 5'9").


    And the Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team will drop Trek and be riding
    these next year:
    http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43644
    --
    Marty
     
  9. Dan Connelly

    Dan Connelly Guest

    Amit wrote:

    > Second, these numbers are debatable. I have 72-73 kg for Armstrong at
    > 1.78 cm, 71 kg for Ullrich at 1.83 cm and 68 kg for Lemond (at I'd
    > guess 5'9").
    >
    > so :
    >
    > Ullrich 2.17
    > Armstrong 2.28
    > Lemond 2.17


    BMI is a much more relevent statistic: mass/height^2.

    Dan
     
  10. Amit

    Amit Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > Weight per inch post-1991:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > Calculate W/kg.



    i think brian's trying to argue that because of doping larger guys are
    climbing better since the mid-90s, ie. they can have the same w/kg of
    smaller guys.

    of course chang already pointed out that if doping is pretty much even
    across the board smaller guys would still be better.

    also if w/kg is the same it's better to be bigger, smaller guys only
    have an advantage if they can make more power for their weight.
     
  11. "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > > Calculate W/kg.

    >
    >
    > i think brian's trying to argue that because of doping larger guys are
    > climbing better since the mid-90s, ie. they can have the same w/kg of
    > smaller guys.
    >
    > of course chang already pointed out that if doping is pretty much even
    > across the board smaller guys would still be better.
    >
    > also if w/kg is the same it's better to be bigger, smaller guys only
    > have an advantage if they can make more power for their weight.


    Without having the data to compare I don't know who's side I'm helping here,
    but W/kg should also factor in bike weight, since it is a constant minimum,
    not a proportional one. W/kg would increase more for lighter riders than
    heavier riders.
     
  12. "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > Without having the data to compare I don't know who's side I'm helping

    here,
    > but W/kg should also factor in bike weight, since it is a constant

    minimum,
    > not a proportional one. W/kg would increase more for lighter riders than
    > heavier riders.
    >


    Oops. W/kg would *decrease* more for lighter riders than heavier riders
    when you consider total weight.
     
  13. Amit

    Amit Guest

    Dan Connelly <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Amit wrote:
    >
    > > Second, these numbers are debatable. I have 72-73 kg for Armstrong at
    > > 1.78 cm, 71 kg for Ullrich at 1.83 cm and 68 kg for Lemond (at I'd
    > > guess 5'9").
    > >
    > > so :
    > >
    > > Ullrich 2.17
    > > Armstrong 2.28
    > > Lemond 2.17

    >
    > BMI is a much more relevent statistic:


    for what ?
     
Loading...
Loading...