• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Armstrong's tour weight over the years

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
acoggan said:
Wherever I chose? ;)

(I received a call asking for my input re. the best venue.)

Then Spain, in Armstrong's case. We all know doping is relevant to an attempt by him. More so than which track is fastest or most commercially interesing.
Would you have recommended a stadium full of fanboys blowing their lungs out to create a "Tailwind"? Or would that hurt his speed more via reduced ambient oxygen levels than with air drag?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Cloxxki said:
Then Spain, in Armstrong's case. We all know doping is relevant to an attempt by him. More so than which track is fastest or most commercially interesing.
Would you have recommended a stadium full of fanboys blowing their lungs out to create a "Tailwind"? Or would that hurt his speed more via reduced ambient oxygen levels than with air drag?

My suggestions/input pertained only to the physics involved (i.e., which track was likely to be fastest).
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
My suggestions/input pertained only to the physics involved (i.e., which track was likely to be fastest).

That would make sense as LA would never want any direct comparisons with previous riders (on similar tracks), and would want to maximize speed and efficiencies to artificially improve his results.

Clearly LA avoided the Hour record due to the unavoidable testing and scrutiny. When you're a doped up, one or two race a year, rider when would he possibly jam in training and racing for a hour record? It was never going to happen.

But that said, being the most efficient, powerful, tenacious and genetically gifted bike rider EVER, winning (losing) 7TdF... it is a complete shock that LA would not want to 'own' the hour record and a couple of Gold medals from the Olympics.

I bet he could have 'learned' even more efficiency in say a one month training session leading up to the attack on the Hour record?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Jeremiah said:
The proposed record attempt was as real as everything else about Armstrong!;)

Given the somewhat odd circumstance surrounding the phone call and the level of enthusiasm exhibited by the caller, I got the impression that it was definitely "game on" initially, at least in the eyes of those around Armstrong.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Neworld said:
That would make sense as LA would never want any direct comparisons with previous riders (on similar tracks), and would want to maximize speed and efficiencies to artificially improve his results.

That is how the game is played.

Of course, simply seeking out the fastest track ain't nothin' compared to the idea of building one of your own, then tearing it down so no one else can use it!
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
My suggestions/input pertained only to the physics involved (i.e., which track was likely to be fastest).

And what do you know about physics...? :) Sorry, couldn't help the little dig. But seriously, why would anyone call an exercise physiologist to sort out an engineering problem? I guess it does make more sense than hiring a gynecologist to devise a training plan.

John Swanson
 
Oct 30, 2012
10
0
0
Visit site
Neworld said:
Clearly LA avoided the Hour record due to the unavoidable testing and scrutiny. When you're a doped up, one or two race a year, rider when would he possibly jam in training and racing for a hour record? It was never going to happen.

And if he had attempted the hour record and broken it, it would now be erased from the history books. He definitely would not have been physically capable of breaking any of the hour records without performance enhancers, as I believe that it would have been beyond his natural physiological parameters.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:
And what do you know about physics...? :) Sorry, couldn't help the little dig. But seriously, why would anyone call an exercise physiologist to sort out an engineering problem? I guess it does make more sense than hiring a gynecologist to devise a training plan.

I assume that they called me because:

1) they knew that I do physics-related stuff like this for fun:

http://www.academia.edu/239368/Mart...cycling_power._J_Appl_Biomech_1998_14_276-291

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/10/challenge-to-cycling-aerodynamicists.html

http://www.tririg.com/docs/CogganLSWT.pdf

and

2) I have connections into the track cycling world.

(BTW, my suggestion to them was to simply buy somebody a round-the-world plane ticket, have them fly to different venues, and ride various tracks using the same powermeter-equipped bike. That data could then have been used to help pick the best location.)
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
I assume that they called me because:

1) they knew that I do physics-related stuff like this for fun:

http://www.academia.edu/239368/Mart...cycling_power._J_Appl_Biomech_1998_14_276-291

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/10/challenge-to-cycling-aerodynamicists.html

http://www.tririg.com/docs/CogganLSWT.pdf

and

2) I have connections into the track cycling world.

(BTW, my suggestion to them was to simply buy somebody a round-the-world plane ticket, have them fly to different venues, and ride various tracks using the same powermeter-equipped bike. That data could then have been used to help pick the best location.)

Very fun. Very cool. Science is a great thing indeed. I know the blog and school projects aren't supposed to be rigorous, but there's a lot that was missed.

For example, one of the most important things in designing a low speed wind tunnel is ensuring flow uniformity. Mostly dV/V (deviation in velocity divided by mean velocity) measured at several points. Depending on the Reynold's number, you're basically going to have a coherence length before the air starts to mix and your velocity profile goes all to hell.

A few years ago I worked on an inkjet project where I ended up designing/building/testing miniature wind tunnels to move drops in flight. Getting it right is tricky as hell. We also used a honeycomb structure, but without much success. In the end we used a plenum (large chamber at near constant pressure) leading into the "tunnel". At the opening into the tunnel we conditioned the air with several pieces of mesh separated by a small distance each. This restricted the air flow and helped create a uniform, non-turbulent field of flow.

John Swanson
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:
Very fun. Very cool. Science is a great thing indeed. I know the blog and school projects aren't supposed to be rigorous, but there's a lot that was missed.

For example, one of the most important things in designing a low speed wind tunnel is ensuring flow uniformity. Mostly dV/V (deviation in velocity divided by mean velocity) measured at several points.

As I described in my write-up, w/o a hot-wire anemometer I was forced to simply rely on theoretical calculations, which put the turbulence intensity at 0.2-0.6%. That's clearly not as good as many modern research tunnels, but it does meet governmentally-suggested guidelines, and is certainly more than good enough for studying low speed aerodynamics (as, e.g., evidenced by the data in Fig. 17).

ScienceIsCool said:
A few years ago I worked on an inkjet project where I ended up designing/building/testing miniature wind tunnels to move drops in flight. Getting it right is tricky as hell. We also used a honeycomb structure, but without much success. In the end we used a plenum (large chamber at near constant pressure) leading into the "tunnel". At the opening into the tunnel we conditioned the air with several pieces of mesh separated by a small distance each. This restricted the air flow and helped create a uniform, non-turbulent field of flow.

Again it appears that you didn't read the full report: in addition to the honeycomb, I used two anti-turbulence screens (mesh) at appropriate spacing to "quiet" the air before it entered the contraction.

BTW, I did some additional validation experiments before putting the tunnel into use, as described here:

http://www.tririg.com/docs/omega_whitepaper.pdf
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
Again it appears that you didn't read the full report: in addition to the honeycomb, I used two anti-turbulence screens (mesh) at appropriate spacing to "quiet" the air before it entered the contraction.

BTW, I did some additional validation experiments before putting the tunnel into use, as described here:

http://www.tririg.com/docs/omega_whitepaper.pdf

Again!?

Anyways, I did see that but I didn't make myself very clear that we used "mesh" in a different way and for different reasons. I'll check out your validation stuff later. If you ever build a wind tunnel again, let me know and I'll share some of my experiences with you.

John Swanson
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:

You brought up turbulence intensity, saying that it was something that I had "missed", when in fact I discussed this in some detail in the report.

ScienceIsCool said:
I didn't make myself very clear that we used "mesh" in a different way and for different reasons.

It sure doesn't sound like it:

"At the opening into the tunnel we conditioned the air with several pieces of mesh separated by a small distance each. This restricted the air flow and helped create a uniform, non-turbulent field of flow."
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Probably because I didn't make myself very clear. If I could just grab a whiteboard and draw it out for you, along with a few relevant equations. But yeah - you have missed a few things. Not surprising considering it isn't your field.

Anyways, my goal wasnt to be critical. My mind just went to all the things I learned in the lab - mostly the hard way.

John Swanson
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:
Probably because I didn't make myself very clear. If I could just grab a whiteboard and draw it out for you, along with a few relevant equations. But yeah - you have missed a few things. Not surprising considering it isn't your field.

I think you are making things up.

EDIT: Scratch that, I'll be more direct: you ARE making things up.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Fantastic. What I would like to show is the length it takes to go from turbulent to smooth flow based on reynold's number. And how "conditioned" flows tend to recombine so that you get the classic high velocity at the center of flow and low velocity near the walls of your chamber. If you play your cards right, you can design things so that you can get a more even velocity distribution in your area of interest (i.e., object that you are measuring drag on in your case). This has the added benefit of reducing the size of wind tunnel needed, which is one of the constraints we started with.

John Swanson
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:
What I would like to show is the length it takes to go from turbulent to smooth flow based on reynold's number.

I didn't miss this: see the 1st two paragraphs on page 6, as well as the data in Table 1.

ScienceIsCool said:
"conditioned" flows tend to recombine so that you get the classic high velocity at the center of flow and low velocity near the walls of your chamber.

I didn't miss this: see the discussion on the design of the test section on page 9, as well as the apparent thickness of the boundary layer on page 12.

ScienceIsCool said:
you can design things so that you can get a more even velocity distribution in your area of interest (i.e., object that you are measuring drag on in your case).

I didn't miss this: see the above as well as discussion on the bottom of page 13 of how I verified the uniformity of the flow field.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
You realy do seem more interested in scoring points than anything else. So with that I will say: Okay, you win. You are right and I am wrong. Perhaps I didn't read your links carefully enough and I definitely didn't explain myself well.

John Swanson
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:
You realy do seem more interested in scoring points than anything else. So with that I will say: Okay, you win. You are right and I am wrong. Perhaps I didn't read your links carefully enough and I definitely didn't explain myself well.

Maybe next time you'll know better than to bring a knife to a gun fight. :D
 
Le breton said:
Definitely not.
Although there might be some very small parallax effects, you can see from the size of the wheels that the frame size is either 54 or 55 cm. Because of the perspective, I would not try to estimate Hincapie's frame size.

The point is to compare Hincapies bike with Armstrongs bike. Because of THIS:

Jeremiah said:
...according to CN he rides a 58 Trek, same as Hincapie. What a joke, 5'8" and he rides the same size bike as a 6'3" guy?...

Another Armstrong lie. I'm going with 5'8" with Tom Cruise shoe lifts. With that bike there is no way at all he is close to 5'11"
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
The angle of the photo makes judging height difficult, but curious tricks employed to give the illusion of height.

He looks taller than Cavendish. But look at the high heels Lance is wearing... They are a different shoe than Leipheimer's, and that hat is going to add height as well... This guy is much shorter than people think.

Lance+Armstrong+Andy+Schleck+Tour+California+n1xrA18ngXTx.jpg
 
Jun 18, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
Gee. Back in the day Jan Ullrich would be accused of being fat and lazy because he would gain some weight during the brief time where he had a break from the bike and we would hear about how Armstrong was out there busting his **** 6 hours a day and hence Lance was morally superior and deserved his wins. but now we learn that Armstrong too gained weight during the off season. What happened to that moral superiority?