2012 GTs climbs comparation

[Ferminal]

Well you have to consider more then just the amount of climbing, I am not a huge fan of the stage designs. And yes I like others dislike the amount of tts as in all liklihood it will be a more defining factor in the overall (not in t.martin's case, he might make top 100 tho)

also the gradient avg is still significant, even more when you consider some of the places of the difficult climbs for each race.

lol, Bavarianrider got it wrong anyway, from the top15 climbs, the Giro has a greater altitude gain than the Tour over a shorter distance. So unless you think that 2km @ 5% is harder than 1500m @ 7.5% ...

Also it shows how bad the Vuelta is, so much for its super climbing route.

 

[Mellow Velo]

lol, Bavarianrider got it wrong anyway, from the top15 climbs, the Giro has a greater altitude gain than the Tour over a shorter distance. So unless you think that 2km @ 5% is harder than 1500m @ 7.5% ...

Also it shows how bad the Vuelta is, so much for its super climbing route.

He's always wrong, often deliberately.
Surely you haven't forgotten this piece of Bavarian alternative logic?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13760

 

[gerundium]

they should rate climbs by simple physics analysis.

The force you need to overcome when climbing mountains is created by your own weight, but it only depends on the angle of the slope.
it's always F = Fw*sin(a)
where Fw is the force caused by your own weight, and a is the angle of the slope. So the difficulty factor would be sin(a)

only thing left to do is convert grade of climbs to angle and you are in business. can't remember how grades are calculated any more and can't be bothered to look up wether is height gain / travel or heigh gain / horizontal travel

 

[Magnus]

It is true about altigraph, but the climbing time doesn't reflect difficulty at all.

If you take into account vertical gain and length it does exactly that. Comparing two climbs that are 10km with 10% average grade the climbing time for a given rider weight and power output is a good way to compare the difficulty of the two climbs for a particular cyclist.

 

[McLovin]

It must be a stage for Erik Dekker-like riders, not only for Cavendish and climbers.

 

[Ferminal]

He's always wrong, often deliberately.
Surely you haven't forgotten this piece of Bavarian alternative logic?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13760

I preferred the claim that PdB would have bigger time gaps than Zoncolan

 

[Viskovitz]

I see that it has already been mentioned in the comments on the PRC page, but I should repeat it here. Port de Lers is missing from the TdF climbs list so the gap on paper between the Giro and the Tour narrows down somewhat.

Yeah, it was missing... we "lost" it while editing the excel, xD.

Now it's fixed. Sorry.

P.S.: Of course the raw data of the climbs isn't enough, you must consider the stages overall, and medium mountain stages (like the brilliant stage of Porrentruy in the Tour and a few others in the Giro). But IMO this data it's a good way to measure how hard a route is, and those 15 climbs can be considered the ingredients to design the mountain of a GT. And you need good ingredients to make a good cake.

 

[Viskovitz]

If you take into account vertical gain and length it does exactly that. Comparing two climbs that are 10km with 10% average grade the climbing time for a given rider weight and power output is a good way to compare the difficulty of the two climbs for a particular cyclist.

Climbing time depends almost only in height gain.

The VAM parameter here comes handy. For example, imagine a guy climbing at 1600 m/h.

Climb A - 16km at 10%, the climbing time would be 1 hour.

Climb B - 32km at 5%, the climbing time would be 1 hour too**.

** BUT!!!

It's easier to put on good VAM values at higher gradients, because the speed is slower so there's less drag too. So actually, it would take more time to climb the B than the A... but obviously the Climb A is way harder.

Dr Ferrari, VAM and Gradient -> http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=74

So, climbing time it's mostly a different way to express height gain, and that's and important parameter but isn't enough.


Edit: **** it, you're right... for the same length and gradient for the climb, the one that takes longer is more difficult because it's more irregular. But that's only useful to compare very little climbs with the same overall numbers.

-----

gerundium, what you're saying is basically that we should measure a climb by its gradient... and that's what everyone does. But gradient isn't enough, neither.

 

[Eshnar]

they should rate climbs by simple physics analysis.

The force you need to overcome when climbing mountains is created by your own weight, but it only depends on the angle of the slope.
it's always F = Fw*sin(a)
where Fw is the force caused by your own weight, and a is the angle of the slope. So the difficulty factor would be sin(a)

only thing left to do is convert grade of climbs to angle and you are in business. can't remember how grades are calculated any more and can't be bothered to look up wether is height gain / travel or heigh gain / horizontal travel

It is not so simple sadly.
There's still to include the force needed to overcome the air drag. Assuming that the steepest is the climb, the less is the drag.
I did a math a while ago, but I stopped when I realized it was fairly complicated.

 

[Magnus]

Edit: **** it, you're right... for the same length and gradient for the climb, the one that takes longer is more difficult because it's more irregular. But that's only useful to compare very little climbs with the same overall numbers.

-----

gerundium, what you're saying is basically that we should measure a climb by its gradient... and that's what everyone does. But gradient isn't enough, neither.

I'm not saying you should do anything. I'm just saying that your method is somewhat arbitrary in the way it judges irregularity since the grading of difficulty is arbitrary (I assume?). The ascent time approach is not arbitrary in that sense but only allows you to compare climbs of same length and gradient (and this method even recognize that different riders might perceive difficulty differently).

However if your gearing allows you to pedal smoothly at a fixed watt output I think the ascent time is a rather accurate comparison-tool across climbs of different length and gradient.

 

[gerundium]

It is not so simple sadly.
There's still to include the force needed to overcome the air drag. Assuming that the steepest is the climb, the less is the drag.
I did a math a while ago, but I stopped when I realized it was fairly complicated.

true. comparing based on a "normalized" rider would probably be best. I might try calculating this at some point, but i don't have the time atm.

something like
m: 70 kg
CdA: 0.3?
Watts: 300? (longest climbs being about an hour this seems like a decent guess)
then i just need something representative for rolling resistance.
together with a profile of a climb you should be able to work things out from there.

 

[Viskovitz]

I'm not saying you should do anything. I'm just saying that your method is somewhat arbitrary in the way it judges irregularity since the grading of difficulty is arbitrary (I assume?). The ascent time approach is not arbitrary in that sense but only allows you to compare climbs of same length and gradient (and this method even recognize that different riders might perceive difficulty differently).

However if your gearing allows you to pedal smoothly at a fixed watt output I think the ascent time is a rather accurate comparison-tool across climbs of different length and gradient.

Yeah, yeah, I know... it's just that I like to talk about this things.

I don't know, perhaps the VAM could be used to compare different climbs assuming a fixed watt output... using what Ferrari says: a formula to compensate that different gradients "produce" difference VAM's with the same power output. But that would be veeery difficult to do, xD.

The APM system is the "better" out there to do this things. In Spain is vastly know and used (in other websites from other countries everyone has his own different system, that they usually don't explain), it represent the reality quite well without absurd result (other systems have illogical result like Bonaigua being as hard as Angliru), it's exponential... so 1km at 10% it's hardar than 2km at 5%, and above all it can be calculated for more or less every climb with a profile.

It has his flaws too, obviously. The main ones are: it doesn't take into account the altitude, irregularity within a whole km isn't measured, and flat parts within the climb add a little to the value while they make the climbs less hard (1km at 10% +1km at 0% + 1km at 10% has the same value than 2km at 10% straight, and the second is harder because you can't rest).

And yes, it's arbitrary, but it's a way to ponderate gradient's put out by a "panel of experts" (cycloturits in a forum)... and this method it's also used in science.

 

[Magnus]

Yeah, yeah, I know... it's just that I like to talk about this things.

I do to

One objective measure for the difficulty of a slope could be watt needed to maintain a fixed speed (would of course depend on rider weight). It would be fun to see how it compares to the APM ratings.

Maybe one could even use % of vo2max needed (for some reference athlete) to maintain a fixed speed, as this would account for altitude as well.

 

[Viskovitz]

I do to

One objective measure for the difficulty of a slope could be watt needed to maintain a fixed speed (would of course depend on rider weight). It would be fun to see how it compares to the APM ratings.

Maybe one could even use % of vo2max needed (for some reference athlete) to maintain a fixed speed, as this would account for altitude as well.

For the 1st paragraph... wouldn't it be just y=sin(a) just like gerundium explained? In that case you only need to overcome the force of your own fat *** on the slope... and since the function of the sine its almost linear for small angles (like in cycling: 18º is a 32%) we would end up in the case of 1km at 10% = 2km at 5% (with no air resistance, with air resistance lower slopes would be more demanding with this system).

I think the problem here is drafting. For one man only, doing 2km at 5% at max speed is as hard as doing 1km at 10%... but following you rivals wheel or the pace of the pack would be easy in the first but not in the second.

Let me explain with a cycling example. For Indurain, Sestriere was a hell of a climb (he even mentioned it whn asked about the hardest climbs he ever did). ¿Why? Because he climb it in a 55Km MTT in the Giro 93... and in the famous Sestriere stage in the Tour 92, chasing Chiapucci with little to no help. But we can agree that Sestriere isn't very demanding, right?

With the VO2max... I don't really know much about that.

 

[Magnus]

For the 1st paragraph... wouldn't it be just y=sin(a) just like gerundium explained? In that case you only need to overcome the force of your own fat *** on the slope... and since the function of the sine its almost linear for small angles (like in cycling: 18º is a 32%) we would end up in the case of 1km at 10% = 2km at 5% (with no air resistance, with air resistance lower slopes would be more demanding with this system).

Yeah you're right.

 

[Potomac]

We need to see the entire profiles of all three races with one single glance
We need one really wide graph with 3 lines.

The x axis is from 0 to 3000 km (or there abouts)

The y axis is of course height in meters.

A pink line for the Giro, a yellow line for le tour etc.

Is there anyone that can take up this challenge?

It would be...EPIC!

 

[Hartog]

The math makes my head spin, but this topic also really makes me look forward to the GTs this year. 2012 Looks like a good year to me, and we'll see which route/climb ends up slaughtering most riders.

Hopefully we'll get some epic racing in all three courses.

 

[will10]

We need to see the entire profiles of all three races with one single glance
We need one really wide graph with 3 lines.

The x axis is from 0 to 3000 km (or there abouts)

The y axis is of course height in meters.

A pink line for the Giro, a yellow line for le tour etc.

Is there anyone that can take up this challenge?

It would be...EPIC!

epically pointless, yes.