Alpe d'Huez climbed in 39'25" by Sastre

[Keith]

Versus the 37'25" of Pantani and Armstrong probably wasn't far off in
the 2004 ITT.

Jalabert also commented that Saster did a nice climb but not all that
impressive, he wasn"' flying out of the hairpins as he saw Armstrong
doing in 2004.

Seems we're on the right track.

I know that Benjo Maso uses the Alpe as benchmark, little progress
between 1962 and 1989 and then all of a sudden minutes shaved off.
Seems to me we're on the right track.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jul 23, 10:26*am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Versus the 37'25" of Pantani and Armstrong probably wasn't far off in
> the 2004 ITT.



Dumbass -


The ITT shouldn't be compared because the riders in the ITT didn't
have to ride two hors'categorie climbs before taking on the Alpe.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Bob Schwartz]

Keith wrote:
> Seems we're on the right track.

If digging deep into your refrigerator of courage
is the right track.

Bob Schwartz

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Jul 23, 12:26*pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Versus the 37'25" of Pantani and Armstrong probably wasn't far off in
> the 2004 ITT.
>
> Jalabert also commented that Saster did a nice climb but not all that
> impressive, he wasn"' flying out of the hairpins as he saw Armstrong
> doing in 2004.
>
> Seems we're on the right track.
>
> I know that Benjo Maso uses the Alpe as benchmark, little progress
> between 1962 and 1989 and then all of a sudden minutes shaved off.
> Seems to me we're on the right track.

Encouraging creativity in doping? Nothing new there.

<http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/19596>

(Pssst... it's an unsolvable problem! Pass it on!)

Just to finish drawing a conclusion-- "only two minutes"? I could
imagine that starting out from a general "Alpe" location (hotel
accommodations, racing village site very close), as I assume happened
with the ITT in '04, plus not having to ride two mountains for warmup
<g> (2004 distance, per Cyclingnews, 15.5 k; 2008 stage distance,
same source, 210.5 k) might indicate that Sast_re_ was doped to the
gills on HGH and undetectable EPO and anything else the High Holy
Rollers of World Corporate don't know about yet.

Just a guess.

For sure he was Oaf-ficially tested tested tested after the stage and
we didn't hear any self-righteous screaming and bellowing yet, so it
looks like he's gold, maybe for the TdF 2008 record books. Unless he
falls afoul of Momma Amaury and they unfreeze a stored sample (one
with his name on the bottle, no problem!) and something bad leaks out.

Keith, did you go and read about the bad police evidence labs yet--
the shoddy work, mistakes by techs, deliberate lies on witness stands,
and coverups that resulted in convictions that were later reversed? Do
you know how strong a case has to be made to reverse a conviction in
the real (non-sporting) world, and for all the numbers of "reversed"
cases, how many more are waiting for justice, unheard?

Where does your wonderful confidence in testing testing testing come
from, just wondering? --D-y

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 23, 10:52*am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dumbass -
>
> The ITT shouldn't be compared because the riders in the ITT didn't
> have to ride two hors'categorie climbs before taking on the Alpe.

Before the 2004 ITT everyone was predicting that Armstrong would smash
Pantani's record for exactly that reason. However, when one makes
reasonable adjustments for the starting points (the 2004 ITT included
about a mile of flat before the last turn that marks the start of the
climb), it appears that Armstrong's 2004 ITT time was around 45 or 50
seconds slower than Pantani's, and roughly 2 minutes faster than
Sastre's climb today.

[Fred Fredburger]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:26 am, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Versus the 37'25" of Pantani and Armstrong probably wasn't far off in
>> the 2004 ITT.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> The ITT shouldn't be compared because the riders in the ITT didn't
> have to ride two hors'categorie climbs before taking on the Alpe.
>

Sometimes I think that Keith is one of Lafferty's sock puppets. His
observation here is classic Lafferty.

[Geraard Spergen]

On Jul 23, 11:16*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:52*am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > The ITT shouldn't be compared because the riders in the ITT didn't
> > have to ride two hors'categorie climbs before taking on the Alpe.
>
> Before the 2004 ITT everyone was predicting that Armstrong would smash
> Pantani's record for exactly that reason. However, when one makes
> reasonable adjustments for the starting points (the 2004 ITT included
> about a mile of flat before the last turn that marks the start of the
> climb), it appears that Armstrong's 2004 ITT time was around 45 or 50
> seconds slower than Pantani's, and roughly 2 minutes faster than
> Sastre's climb today.

And neither Pantani nor Sastre had Germans spitting on them.
Did see some naked escorts today though.

[Brian Lafferty]

It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
assuming
Rider weight--134lbs
Bike weight 18lbs
Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
Climb time--2365 seconds

Using the calculator at
http://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> assuming
> Rider weight--134lbs
> Bike weight 18lbs
> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html

The bike was weighed after the finish at exactly 6800 grams, so about
15lbs, plus weight of bottles and computer, so very likely under 15.5
lbs.

-ilan

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jul 23, 12:43*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> assuming
> Rider weight--134lbs
> Bike weight 18lbs
> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html




Dumbass -



Wow. I would've expected more watts.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 23, 12:43*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> assuming
> Rider weight--134lbs
> Bike weight 18lbs
> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html

Dumbass,

Using that calculator, LANCE would have been producing 315 watts
during the 2004 ITT. Tell Vayer.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> assuming
> Rider weight--134lbs
> Bike weight 18lbs
> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html

That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html (which I've used to compare
my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
reasonable.

I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
45kph.

By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.

-ilan

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> assuming [...]

For some real data, have a look at
http://www.peter-krause.net/srm/images/stories/stage17_sivtsov.gif
Today: http://www.velonews.com/article/80756

[Davey Crockett]

ilanpsi@gmail.com a écrit profondement:


|
| The bike was weighed after the finish at exactly 6800 grams, so about
| 15lbs, plus weight of bottles and computer, so very likely under 15.5
| lbs.
|
| -ilan

++transponder

--
Davey Crockett

[RicodJour]

On Jul 23, 4:16*pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> > assuming
> > Rider weight--134lbs
> > Bike weight 18lbs
> > Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> > Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> > Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> The bike was weighed after the finish at exactly 6800 grams, so about
> 15lbs, plus weight of bottles and computer, so very likely under 15.5
> lbs.

Maybe Brian was assuming that Sastre kept a couple or three full
bottles in reserve all the way to the summit.

R

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 23, 1:47*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:43*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> > assuming
> > Rider weight--134lbs
> > Bike weight 18lbs
> > Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> > Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> > Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Using that calculator, LANCE would have been producing 315 watts
> during the 2004 ITT. Tell Vayer.

The /DUMBASS/ key is hidden under the escutcheon, but one can't help
but hit it.

[Fred Fredburger]

Robert Chung wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
>> assuming
>> Rider weight--134lbs
>> Bike weight 18lbs
>> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
>> Climb time--2365 seconds
>>
>> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Using that calculator, LANCE would have been producing 315 watts
> during the 2004 ITT. Tell Vayer.

Vayer was guilty of wishful calculation then, just as Lafferty is guilty
of it now.

[Brian Lafferty]

ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
>> assuming
>> Rider weight--134lbs
>> Bike weight 18lbs
>> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
>> Climb time--2365 seconds
>>
>> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
> http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html (which I've used to compare
> my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
> particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
> calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
> reasonable.
>
> I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
> even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
> Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
> Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
> at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
> e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
> 45kph.
>
> By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>
> -ilan
The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. The page you link to has a
calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
It doesn't appear to to that calculation.


Take a look at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html

This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. Pantani averaged 371
and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.

[Brian Lafferty]

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:16 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
>>> assuming
>>> Rider weight--134lbs
>>> Bike weight 18lbs
>>> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
>>> Climb time--2365 seconds
>>> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>> The bike was weighed after the finish at exactly 6800 grams, so about
>> 15lbs, plus weight of bottles and computer, so very likely under 15.5
>> lbs.
>
> Maybe Brian was assuming that Sastre kept a couple or three full
> bottles in reserve all the way to the summit.
>
> R
I simply took the weight given in the calculator. The other calculator
I used, the bike weight was at 14 lbs. I don't recall Sastre with a
water bottle during the last 8km or so, but I could be well be wrong on
that.

[Nobody]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT), "dustoyevsky@mac.com"
<dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

>For sure he was Oaf-ficially tested tested tested after the stage and
>we didn't hear any self-righteous screaming and bellowing yet, so it
>looks like he's gold, maybe for the TdF 2008 record books. Unless he
>falls afoul of Momma Amaury and they unfreeze a stored sample (one
>with his name on the bottle, no problem!) and something bad leaks out.

No problem. IIRC, CSC riders are issued one of these in each kit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb_tip

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/epo_protease

*(BTW you must be Russian. We say 'thaw'. :-p)

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 23, 3:08*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> >> assuming
> >> Rider weight--134lbs
> >> Bike weight 18lbs
> >> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> >> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> >> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> > That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
> >http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html(which I've used to compare
> > my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
> > particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
> > calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
> > reasonable.
>
> > I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
> > even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
> > Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
> > Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
> > at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
> > e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
> > 45kph.
>
> > By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>
> > -ilan
>
> The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
> blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. *The page you link to has a
> calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
> It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>
> Take a look at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>
> This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. *Pantani averaged 371
> and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.

Idiot,

The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. FAIL.

Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small
fast climber like Sastre is an underestimate. You should
add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air resistance.

If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
for air resistance (assuming no wind). That's
328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. That is
more plausible. That's also the rough number you
would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
forget about tires and air.

Ben

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 23, 3:29*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:08*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> > >> assuming
> > >> Rider weight--134lbs
> > >> Bike weight 18lbs
> > >> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> > >> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> > >> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> > > That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
> > >http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html(whichI've used to compare
> > > my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
> > > particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
> > > calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
> > > reasonable.
>
> > > I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
> > > even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
> > > Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
> > > Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
> > > at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
> > > e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
> > > 45kph.
>
> > > By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>
> > > -ilan
>
> > The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
> > blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. *The page you link to has a
> > calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
> > It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>
> > Take a look athttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>
> > This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. *Pantani averaged 371
> > and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.
>
> Idiot,
>
> The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
> anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
> It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. *FAIL.

After the first exam in a lower div poli-sci class, the prof said "I
keep making the tests easier and easier, but the grades don't
change." It almost sounded like a complaint.

The grades were neither all F's, nor all A's.

I don't mind easy tests, if I'm the one taking them. On the LSAT, the
hardest of the sections is the "logic games." It makes one wonder.

[Brian Lafferty]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:08 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
>>>> assuming
>>>> Rider weight--134lbs
>>>> Bike weight 18lbs
>>>> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
>>>> Climb time--2365 seconds
>>>> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>>> That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
>>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html(which I've used to compare
>>> my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
>>> particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
>>> calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
>>> reasonable.
>>> I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
>>> even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
>>> Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
>>> Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
>>> at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
>>> e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
>>> 45kph.
>>> By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>>> -ilan
>> The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
>> blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. The page you link to has a
>> calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
>> It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>>
>> Take a look at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>>
>> This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. Pantani averaged 371
>> and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.
>
> Idiot,
>
> The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
> anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
> It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. FAIL.
>
> Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small
> fast climber like Sastre is an underestimate. You should
> add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air resistance.
>
> If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
> about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
> for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
> for air resistance (assuming no wind). That's
> 328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
> Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. That is
> more plausible. That's also the rough number you
> would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
> for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
> forget about tires and air.
>
> Ben

OK. Let's add 10% as Friel (actually Dr. Lim) suggests. That gives an
average or around 302 watts. Now substantiate your 40-50 W. estimate for
rolling resistance.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 23, 3:29*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:08*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> > >> assuming
> > >> Rider weight--134lbs
> > >> Bike weight 18lbs
> > >> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> > >> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> > >> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> > > That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
> > >http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html(whichI've used to compare
> > > my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
> > > particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
> > > calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
> > > reasonable.
>
> > > I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
> > > even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
> > > Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
> > > Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
> > > at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
> > > e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
> > > 45kph.
>
> > > By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>
> > > -ilan
>
> > The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
> > blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. *The page you link to has a
> > calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
> > It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>
> > Take a look athttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>
> > This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. *Pantani averaged 371
> > and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.
>
> Idiot,
>
> The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
> anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
> It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. *FAIL.
>
> Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small
> fast climber like Sastre is an underestimate. *You should
> add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air resistance.
>
> If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
> about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
> for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
> for air resistance (assuming no wind). *That's
> 328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
> Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. *That is
> more plausible. *That's also the rough number you
> would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
> for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
> forget about tires and air.
>
> Ben

Yeah, but the bigger discrepancy is that Sandiway presumed the Alpe
d'Huez climb averaged 7.9% over 13.8km (=1090m total elevation gain)
while Brian is using 965m total gain.

[Bret Wade]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> Idiot,
> FAIL.

Ben, you're definitely getting meaner, but no where near lethal levels.
Population levels are still rising and you're just going to have to try
harder.

[Donald Munro]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add anything for rolling
> resistance and air resistance. It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8
> m/s^2. FAIL.
>
> Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small fast climber like Sastre
> is an underestimate. You should add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air
> resistance.
>
> If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in about 11 mph for
> Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W for the climb, 16 W for rolling
> resistance, and 36 W for air resistance (assuming no wind).

And there was a head wind.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 23, 4:24*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 3:08 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
> >> blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. *The page you link to has a
> >> calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
> >> It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>
> >> Take a look athttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>
> >> This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. *Pantani averaged 371
> >> and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.
>
> > Idiot,
>
> > The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
> > anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
> > It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. *FAIL.
>
> > Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small
> > fast climber like Sastre is an underestimate. *You should
> > add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air resistance.
>
> > If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
> > about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
> > for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
> > for air resistance (assuming no wind). *That's
> > 328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
> > Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. *That is
> > more plausible. *That's also the rough number you
> > would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
> > for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
> > forget about tires and air.
>
> > Ben
>
> OK. Let's add 10% as Friel (actually Dr. Lim) suggests. That gives an
> average or around 302 watts. Now substantiate your 40-50 W. estimate for
> rolling resistance.

Lazybones,

Substantiate? That's a lot higher standard of proof than
you've bothered to come up with. The 40-50 W is for
rolling _plus_ air drag. You're arguing over a difference
of ~ 15 watts; these estimates are likely no more accurate
than that. Sandiway's calculator gave 52 watts for air drag
+ rolling resistance. Similarly, go to

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

plug in 0.7 m^2 for area (climbing on the tops), 0.08 for
grade, 5 m/s for speed, and other numbers as appropriate,
press "Run Model." analyticcycling probably shows the
formulas somewhere. I can write them down if you really
can't find them anywhere else, but I'm tired out after doing
Carl Fogel's midterm project for him.

Ben

[Brian Lafferty]

Robert Chung wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:29 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 3:08 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
>>>>> assuming
>>>>> Rider weight--134lbs
>>>>> Bike weight 18lbs
>>>>> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
>>>>> Climb time--2365 seconds
>>>>> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>>>> That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
>>>> http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html(whichI've used to compare
>>>> my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
>>>> particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
>>>> calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
>>>> reasonable.
>>>> I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
>>>> even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
>>>> Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
>>>> Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
>>>> at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
>>>> e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
>>>> 45kph.
>>>> By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>>>> -ilan
>>> The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
>>> blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. The page you link to has a
>>> calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
>>> It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>>> Take a look athttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>>> This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. Pantani averaged 371
>>> and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.
>> Idiot,
>>
>> The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
>> anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
>> It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. FAIL.
>>
>> Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small
>> fast climber like Sastre is an underestimate. You should
>> add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air resistance.
>>
>> If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
>> about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
>> for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
>> for air resistance (assuming no wind). That's
>> 328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
>> Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. That is
>> more plausible. That's also the rough number you
>> would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
>> for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
>> forget about tires and air.
>>
>> Ben
>
> Yeah, but the bigger discrepancy is that Sandiway presumed the Alpe
> d'Huez climb averaged 7.9% over 13.8km (=1090m total elevation gain)
> while Brian is using 965m total gain.

Calling Benjo for climb data.......

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Jul 24, 1:30 am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:29 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 3:08 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jul 23, 9:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >> It looks like Sastre averaged something like 275 watts for the climb
> > > >> assuming
> > > >> Rider weight--134lbs
> > > >> Bike weight 18lbs
> > > >> Vertical Rise--3,166 feet
> > > >> Climb time--2365 seconds
>
> > > >> Using the calculator athttp://oncycling.blogspot.com/2008/01/climbing-calculator.html
>
> > > > That calculator doesn't seem consistent with this one
> > > >http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html(whichI'veused to compare
> > > > my times and average power and which has been quite accurate). In
> > > > particular, your figures give about 53 minutes for the climb. The
> > > > calculator I cite gives about 400W average which seems much more
> > > > reasonable.
>
> > > > I any case, your figure of 275 Watts is obviously wrong. First of all,
> > > > even I can output such wattage for extended periods, and I'm weak.
> > > > Secondly, even hidden in the peloton, he's outputting at least 350
> > > > Watts when it speeds up to 55kph on flat ground for extended periods
> > > > at the end of flat stages. That's an estimate from my power meter,
> > > > e.g., at 275W on flat ground in a big bunch, I'm going less than
> > > > 45kph.
>
> > > > By the way, I have exactly the same bike he used.
>
> > > > -ilan
>
> > > The calculator I used is based on Joel Friel's calculation from his
> > > blog, and IIRC, from his training bible. The page you link to has a
> > > calculator for speed and energy that requires you to input the watts.
> > > It doesn't appear to to that calculation.
>
> > > Take a look athttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/bike/climb.html
>
> > > This calculator comes up with 268.8 watts average. Pantani averaged 371
> > > and Ullrich 446 acording to the calculations at this site.
>
> > Idiot,
>
> > The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add
> > anything for rolling resistance and air resistance.
> > It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8 m/s^2. FAIL.
>
> > Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small
> > fast climber like Sastre is an underestimate. You should
> > add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air resistance.
>
> > If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
> > about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
> > for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
> > for air resistance (assuming no wind). That's
> > 328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
> > Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. That is
> > more plausible. That's also the rough number you
> > would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
> > for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
> > forget about tires and air.
>
> > Ben
>
> Yeah, but the bigger discrepancy is that Sandiway presumed the Alpe
> d'Huez climb averaged 7.9% over 13.8km (=1090m total elevation gain)
> while Brian is using 965m total gain.

http://www.climbbybike.com/climb.asp?Col=Alpe-dHuez&qryMountainID=5
gives 8.1% for 13.2km, the length being shorter than the timed climb
we're talking about. In any case, that site gives an elevation gain of
1071m for this subset of the timed climb, so much more than 965m, and
consistent with 1090 for the longer climb of 13.8km.

-ilan

[Keith]

>Calling Benjo for climb data.......

Yes, he'll set us straight.

Eurosport were interested in these numbers too and they reckoned with
an "expert" that you can 't do it under 39 minutes without being on
the juice...

Andy Schleck climbed in 41.5 minutes, the same time as Fignon
in...1984 ! Arguable he could have climbed faster though as he spent
most of his time going up and down the chase group.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 23, 4:49*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > Yeah, but the bigger discrepancy is that Sandiway presumed the Alpe
> > d'Huez climb averaged 7.9% over 13.8km (=1090m total elevation gain)
> > while Brian is using 965m total gain.
>
> Calling Benjo for climb data.......

Sure. But in the short run, you could just stop mixing the
calculations and either use one or the other.

Friel's a joke.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jul 23, 4:49*pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
> >> If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in
> >> about 11 mph for Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W
> >> for the climb, 16 W for rolling resistance, and 36 W
> >> for air resistance (assuming no wind). *That's
> >> 328 W total or about 5.4 W/kg, assuming you have
> >> Sastre's weight correct at about 60 kg. *That is
> >> more plausible. *That's also the rough number you
> >> would need to compare to Sandiway's numbers
> >> for Pantan and Ullrich, because Sandiway didn't
> >> forget about tires and air.
>
> >> Ben
>
> > Yeah, but the bigger discrepancy is that Sandiway presumed the Alpe
> > d'Huez climb averaged 7.9% over 13.8km (=1090m total elevation gain)
> > while Brian is using 965m total gain.
>
> Calling Benjo for climb data......



Dumbass -


Generally speaking, bjw is correct about the significance of the
amount of power it takes to overcome wind resistance.

It doesn't matter for guys like you and me, but the best in the world
ascend those grades fast enough so that drafting matters. Fluid
Dynamics equations aside, you can see it in the way they race.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 23, 6:38*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> I'm tired out after doing
> Carl Fogel's midterm project for him.

Shoulda used my approach. Simpler and, um, eloquent.

[Bret Wade]

Bret Wade wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
>> Idiot,
>> FAIL.
>
> Ben, you're definitely getting meaner, but no where near lethal levels.
> Population levels are still rising and you're just going to have to try
> harder.


Sorry to reply to myself, but I should add that the movement has decided
to take your pony as hostage.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 23, 8:37*pm, Bret Wade <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > Idiot,
> > FAIL.
>
> Ben, you're definitely getting meaner, but no where near lethal levels.
> Population levels are still rising and you're just going to have to try
> harder.

Hi Bret,

I sorta like it.

I'm guessing he has voted democrat near >90% of the time, which really
is living on the mean street. Ballots are "bullets."

BTW, I blame the democrats for GWB: they proffered Al Gore & John
Kerry.

hth,
SoTS

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 23, 9:07*pm, Bret Wade <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bret Wade wrote:
> > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> >> Idiot,
> >> FAIL.
>
> > Ben, you're definitely getting meaner, but no where near lethal levels.
> > Population levels are still rising and you're just going to have to try
> > harder.
>
> Sorry to reply to myself, but I should add that the movement has decided
> to take your pony as hostage.

No, no, not my PONY!!

You don't want me to get all up like
Carrie in here.

I'm not usually this mean, but apparently
Ricky Ricardo isn't going to be using the
"Irritating Cobra" nickname in the immediate
future, so I'm making a bid to take it over.
Er, to take it over, dumbass.

Ben
Irritating cobras since "The Jungle Book"
came out.

[Fred Fredburger]

Donald Munro wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> The oncycling.blogspot.com calculator forgot to add anything for rolling
>> resistance and air resistance. It's just mass * elevation/time * 9.8
>> m/s^2. FAIL.
>>
>> Friel recommended adding 10%, which for a small fast climber like Sastre
>> is an underestimate. You should add perhaps 40-50 W for rolling+air
>> resistance.
>>
>> If you go back to Sandiway's calculator and put in about 11 mph for
>> Sastre's speed, you'll get 276 W for the climb, 16 W for rolling
>> resistance, and 36 W for air resistance (assuming no wind).
>
> And there was a head wind.
>

Yeah, but we know who this is REALLY about. So it's important to
artificially deflate the numbers produced by Sastre, for historical
comparisons to the artificially inflated numbers of yesteryear.

Screw the ponies, I want a sacred cow. They last longer.

[Donald Munro]

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Screw the ponies, I want a sacred cow. They last longer.

And you can milk them.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 24, 10:13*am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:37*pm, Bret Wade <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > > Idiot,
> > > FAIL.
>
> > Ben, you're definitely getting meaner, but no where near lethal levels.
> > Population levels are still rising and you're just going to have to try
> > harder.
>
> Hi Bret,
>
> I sorta like it.
>
> I'm guessing he has voted democrat near >90% of the time, which really
> is living on the mean street. *Ballots are "bullets."
>
> BTW, I blame the democrats for GWB: *they proffered Al Gore & John
> Kerry.
>
> hth,
> SoTS

I mean, when it comes to harming poor folk, think of democrats as a
modern brand of Marie Antionette. Most of them mean well and are
actually sincere in "helping."

Out of corn? Let them eat kipfel.
http://www.supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/31563

[Fred Fredburger]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> I mean, when it comes to harming poor folk, think of democrats as a
> modern brand of Marie Antionette. Most of them mean well and are
> actually sincere in "helping."
>
> Out of corn? Let them eat kipfel.
> http://www.supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/31563

Pick your poison. Democrats are to helping the poor what Republicans are
to personal freedom.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 24, 5:31*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
<myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:

> For some real data, have a look athttp://www.peter-krause.net/srm/images/stories/stage17_sivtsov.gif
> Today:http://www.velonews.com/article/80756

Lordy those SRM plots are ugly.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 24, 5:31*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
<myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:

> For some real data, have a look athttp://www.peter-krause.net/srm/images/stories/stage17_sivtsov.gif

BTW, that's just a plot of the data. For some real data, you can look
here at Hansen's data (although he finished far behind Siutsou):
http://trainingpeaks.com/tourdefrance2008/

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 24, 5:58*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > I mean, when it comes to harming poor folk, think of democrats as a
> > modern brand of Marie Antionette. *Most of them mean well and are
> > actually sincere in "helping."
>
> > Out of corn? Let them eat kipfel.
> >http://www.supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/31563
>
> Pick your poison. Democrats are to helping the poor what Republicans are
> to personal freedom.

Yeah, it is poison diet.

I have yet to vote for a Republican for any federal office.

I don't see how I could possibly vote for a democrat, pretending for a
moment that my voting activities could matter. They are pure statists
possessing the odd simultaneous qualities of arrogance and ignorance.
Have you ever heard them even pay lip service to strictly limited
guvmint? And even if you could find such a thing, was it not a case
of mere politiking and quest for power, by poking at "the other
side?" Who was the last democrat prezident that was not a pure
statist? I suppose I'll guess at Grover Cleveland.

Clinton didn't end up as so relatively bad as he had a republican
congress, where that combination was (relatively) mechanically
effective due to gridlock in reducing the rate of guvmint growth.
Thank goodness for whores wanting a second term and gridlock. That
combination is not available in the upcoming election, as if one could
simply choose such a thing anyway.

This is very amusing:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/LetterToGroverCleveland.htm

I'm out.

[Stu Fleming]

Robert Chung wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:31 pm, Ted van de Weteringe
> <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For some real data, have a look athttp://www.peter-krause.net/srm/images/stories/stage17_sivtsov.gif
>
> BTW, that's just a plot of the data. For some real data, you can look
> here at Hansen's data (although he finished far behind Siutsou):
> http://trainingpeaks.com/tourdefrance2008/
>

Just wait for a few years and Hansen's data will be adjusted to show
that those weren't really peaks after all.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jul 25, 12:53*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:31*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> > For some real data, have a look athttp://www.peter-krause.net/srm/images/stories/stage17_sivtsov.gif
>
> BTW, that's just a plot of the data. For some real data, you can look
> here at Hansen's data (although he finished far behind Siutsou):http://trainingpeaks.com/tourdefrance2008/

I haven't ever owned a power meter. I guessing you mean the sivtsov
stuff is filtered, er, I mean smoothed, whereas the Hansen's data
isn't. Maybe I'm not really guessing.

Otherwise, why don't you like it? (I don't think it is too good
either on an aesthetic basis.)

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 26, 3:28*am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:53*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 5:31*pm, Ted van de Weteringe
>
> > <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> > > For some real data, have a look athttp://www.peter-krause.net/srm/images/stories/stage17_sivtsov.gif
>
> > BTW, that's just a plot of the data. For some real data, you can look
> > here at Hansen's data (although he finished far behind Siutsou):http://trainingpeaks.com/tourdefrance2008/
>
> I haven't ever owned a power meter. *I guessing you mean the sivtsov
> stuff is filtered, er, I mean smoothed, whereas the Hansen's data
> isn't. *Maybe I'm not really guessing.

Partly. The other thing you can do with the actual data is look to see
how often a rider was riding in that 56x11.

> Otherwise, why don't you like it? *(I don't think it is too good
> either on an aesthetic basis.)

When I used to play basketball, I was known as "small, but deceptively
slow." SRM plots may be ugly, but they're deceptively hard to get
information out of.