Best climbers in history?

[jordan5000]

I actually did a calculation and if Pantani and Coppi had the same watt/kg output Coppi would have actually ridden about 35 minutes for Alpe D'huez with a lighter bike.

 

[scullster46]

I actually did a calculation and if Pantani and Coppi had the same watt/kg output Coppi would have actually ridden about 35 minutes for Alpe D'huez with a lighter bike.

does this account for the difference in road surface?? Either way...WOW

 

[jordan5000]

No it doesn't, it only accounts for the difference in weight between the bikes.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

No it doesn't, it only accounts for the difference in weight between the bikes.

no way that 5 kg is going to make a 3 min difference

 

[Le breton]

I actually did a calculation and if Pantani and Coppi had the same watt/kg output Coppi would have actually ridden about 35 minutes for Alpe D'huez with a lighter bike.

Considering that on Alpe d'Huez we are talking about racers going up à 8.2 % gradient at ~20 km/h, the energy lost to gravity represents about 88% of the total energy expanded.

A 70 kg racer with a 9 kg bike will lose, compared to a 70 kg racer equipped with an 8 kg bike 0.88(1/80) = 1.1%.

Let's assume Coppi could climb AdH in 35:00 with an 8kg bike.
What would be (approximately) the weight of the bike that would slow him down to 45:00?

10/35 = 28.6%

Since an extra kilo slows down the racer by about 1.1%, to slow him down by 28,6% the bike would have to be about 28.6/1.1 = 26 kilos heavier.

Therefore Fausto Coppi used a 26 + 8 = 34 kg bike in 1952.

Unfair considering his opponents probably had bikes lighter than 10 kg.

 

[ultimobici]

Considering that on Alpe d'Huez we are talking about racers going up à 8.2 % gradient at ~20 km/h, the energy lost to gravity represents about 88% of the total energy expanded.

A 70 kg racer with a 9 kg bike will lose, compared to a 70 kg racer equipped with an 8 kg bike 0.88(1/80) = 1.1%.

Let's assume Coppi could climb AdH in 35:00 with an 8kg bike.
What would be (approximately) the weight of the bike that would slow him down to 45:00?

10/35 = 28.6%

Since an extra kilo slows down the racer by about 1.1%, to slow him down by 28,6% the bike would have to be about 28.6/1.1 = 26 kilos heavier.

Therefore Fausto Coppi used a 26 + 8 = 34 kg bike in 1952.

Unfair considering his opponents probably had bikes lighter than 10 kg.

How do you figure on sub 10kg bikes in the 40's & 50's? I was riding an 8kg bike with Super Record in 1983 that was at least 2kgs lighter than the usual steel framed competition. So the idea that a 1950's Tour bike was sub 10 is ludicrous.

In Coppi's era training methods were in their infancy, hydration not really understood to any degree & cycling kit was all woollen so weighed a ton once soaked in sweat from the day's exertions. So his extra time cannot be solely attributed to the bike's weight.

 

[jordan5000]

It's fairly simple, Marco Pantani had w/kg of 6.6 during his best climbs ( I forget where I read it, maybe science of sport). If you do the math it's about a 9lb difference between the bikes. Pantani was 54kg so that puts his wattage at about 376.2 (including weight of bike). Coppi would have had to put out an extra 24.4 watts, or 6.47% due to the weight of his bike to match Pantani's speed but he didn't, too compare the two subtract 5.7% of his time, because that's what it would be if he had a lighter bike. My first calculation was wrong, this should be more accurate. The time would be 42:24, completely ignore my prior post, but keep in mind it would be about 4% faster if he did it completely fresh (in a time trial) and a bit less if it was at the end of a shorter stage, it would be much faster on better roads as well.

 

[Race Radio]

Riis had a formula for how much time you save with each kg.

I seem to remember it was 10sec per km of climbing per kilo

 

[El Pistolero]

It's fairly simple, Marco Pantani had w/kg of 6.6 during his best climbs ( I forget where I read it, maybe science of sport). If you do the math it's about a 9lb difference between the bikes. Pantani was 54kg so that puts his wattage at about 376.2 (including weight of bike). Coppi would have had to put out an extra 24.4 watts, or 6.47% due to the weight of his bike to match Pantani's speed but he didn't, too compare the two subtract 5.7% of his time, because that's what it would be if he had a lighter bike. My first calculation was wrong, this should be more accurate. The time would be 42:24, completely ignore my prior post, but keep in mind it would be about 4% faster if he did it completely fresh (in a time trial) and a bit less if it was at the end of a shorter stage, it would be much faster on better roads as well.

Marco Pantani had over 7.3 w/kg during his best climbs.

 

[jordan5000]

Really? Where was this info from, I think I got 6.6w/kg from science of sport.

 

[El Pistolero]

Really? Where was this info from, I think I got 6.6w/kg from science of sport.

Well, 7.3 w/kg was around his highest, his average will probably have been the 6.6 you mention. But on his best best days he went over 7 w/kg. There's a thread in the clinic about it.

Contador did around 6.8 w/kg at Verbier I think and 6.6 w/kg for 7km long on the Etna.

 

[AngusW]

Lucien Van Impe, as others have said, does deserve to be listed in the poll. Six Tour KOM wins between 1971 and 1983 equalled Bahamontes' record and was spread over a longer period (Bahamontes Tour KOM wins were stretched over 10 years, 1954 - 1964).

Luis Ocana deserves a mention for a day-long break in 1971 which destroyed Merckx and should have won Ocana the Tour that year.

For sheer bravado, Merckx's long breakway in the Pyrenees in 1969 (when he was already 8 mins ahead on GC) is one of the greatest mountain rides ever. I believe he did a similar break in the 1970 Tour when in the yellow jersey, which netted him a second KOM title.

Joop Zootemelk, despite no KOM jerseys, won 3 MTFs in the 1976 Tour ahead of Van Impe.

Lance Armstrong's record in Tour MTFs is second to none during his winning streak. Wins at Sestrierre, Alpe d'Huez, Plat d'Adet, La Mongie, Plateau de Beille (x 2), Luz Ardiden, Villard de Lans plus the only two mountain time trials during that time at Chamrousse and Alpe d'Huez. Not to mention second places at Hautacam, La Mongie, Mont Ventoux and Courcheval. On top form in the mountains (ie 2000 & 2001) his explosiveness took huge amounts of time out of his GC opponents during the final climb.

Also, Richard Virenque with 7 Tour KOM titles should perhaps have been included in the poll?

And maybe Emmanuele Sella with his 3 (?) mountain stage wins in the 2008 Giro?

 

[Le breton]

How do you figure on sub 10kg bikes in the 40's & 50's? I was riding an 8kg bike with Super Record in 1983 that was at least 2kgs lighter than the usual steel framed competition. So the idea that a 1950's Tour bike was sub 10 is ludicrous.

In Coppi's era training methods were in their infancy, hydration not really understood to any degree & cycling kit was all woollen so weighed a ton once soaked in sweat from the day's exertions. So his extra time cannot be solely attributed to the bike's weight.

Hello bubble man.
Why don't you try to understand what I wrote instead of lashing out in the dark.

 

[ultimobici]

Hello bubble man.
Why don't you try to understand what I wrote instead of lashing out in the dark.

What?

The way you phrased your post it seemed like you meant Coppi's opponents in 52, not history. But hey, it'd been a long day and I was tired!

Besides it's pointless arguing about whether Coppi would have beaten the record on a lighter bike or not. Too many changes between 52 & the present day to contemplate.

 

[Le breton]

Riis had a formula for how much time you save with each kg.

I seem to remember it was 10sec per km of climbing per kilo

Let's try to figure out
http://89.167.143.76/showthread.php?t=8839&page=48
on the above page, contribution 478 by Alex, we see that for climbs around %ages of interest, gravity plays a proportional role on about 90% of the energy expanded.

Let's take a climb at 20 km/h, ie 180 seconds per km.
gravity plays on about 90% of that time, ie 162 seconds.
Let's take a 70 kg cyclist with 8 kg bike. Total = 78 kg

Each kilogram accounts for 162/78 ~2.1 second.
Riis is once more full of cr@p if your quote is correct.

 

[Le breton]

Let's try to figure out
Each kilogram accounts for 162/78 ~2.1 second.
Riis is once more full of cr@p if your quote is correct.

It came back to haunt me.
How steep would the "road" have to be for 10sec per kg and per km?

Each km would need to take 78 times 10 = 780 seconds (for a 70kg cyclist + 8kg equipment)

We are talking about 4.6 km/hr, ie about 45° angle, 70% slope in bicycling terms.
Let's ditch the useless bike, we are talking real mountain climbing.

 

[Duartista]

How do you figure on sub 10kg bikes in the 40's & 50's? I was riding an 8kg bike with Super Record in 1983 that was at least 2kgs lighter than the usual steel framed competition. So the idea that a 1950's Tour bike was sub 10 is ludicrous.

In Coppi's era training methods were in their infancy, hydration not really understood to any degree & cycling kit was all woollen so weighed a ton once soaked in sweat from the day's exertions. So his extra time cannot be solely attributed to the bike's weight.

Coppi's 1949 bike is supposed to have weighed 22lb, so just under 10 kilos.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There is nothing like enough love for José Manuel Fuente in this thread. In fact, this lack of love angers me.

 

[El Pistolero]

There is nothing like enough love for José Manuel Fuente in this thread. In fact, this lack of love angers me.

Would have even won a Giro against Merckx if he didn't make some stupid mistakes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Would have even won a Giro against Merckx if he didn't make some stupid mistakes.

Yup, not eating on the way to Sanremo. Stupid, stupid. But one of the purest of climbers in the history of the sport, even if health problems meant his heyday was sadly too short.

 

[Le breton]

There is nothing like enough love for José Manuel Fuente in this thread. In fact, this lack of love angers me.

Due to your insistence I looked him up on wikipedia.

His career was at a time when I was too busy with work and family to really follow cycling, (plus the fact that I lived in the US) except that I made an effort to follow the TdF.

Remind me of one attempt at listening to the radio on short waves. I was thrilled once to catch a report on cycling in the evening. That is until a neighbor turned on his vacuum cleaner 5 minutes later and that was the end of it.

If you have lived in the US you will know that anybody is allowed to make as much RF noise as they want, plus there no ground on electrical installations, so that noise carries to all neighbors through the wallplug. Plus no restrictions on how much noise appliances are allowed to emit.

I hope things have changed, but I somehow doubt it (but less need now with internet radio)

 

[Swede1]

Best climber is of course Lance Armstrong!

 

[Le breton]

Best climber is of course Lance Armstrong!

Of course ... in Austin

 

[hfer07]

This thread is irrelevant since the author has forgotten to add to the poll the best climber of the 80's by the name of Luis Herrera & Jose Manuel Fuente from the 70's.

 

[El Pistolero]

By the way, no one would have ever beaten '69 Merckx. Just read about that Tour, it's crazy stuff. Winning mountain stages by 8 minutes...