Comparing the mountains in all 3 GTs in 2015

[Viskovitz]

I'm sorry, i didn't want to start a new thread to kind of spam our blog, but didn't find a thread where this would be appropriate. The thing is I think this is the most informative and important stuff we do in PRC, been doing it since 2008 and it's always interesting, and highlights difference between races and editions of races quite well.

It's a comparative between the 3 GTs using the 15 hardest climbs in each one. The article it's in Spanish but the graphics and numbers speak on their own.

Comparing the mountains in all 3 GTs in 2015


3 pics that summarize the info the best:

 

[Eshnar]

Great work as always
By any chance, do you guys have data about the total vertical gain in GTs? I mean, not just including the top 15 climbs

 

[Netserk]

Hmm, in the road book last year the Vuelta had vertical gain noted for every stage, but it was quite exaggerated I think.

Do you see a vertical gain of 1,100m here?

 

[Eshnar]

Do you see a vertical gain of 1,100m here?

no, but it could be... it's not impossible, if you count every single small ramp.

 

[Netserk]

In that case the total vertical gain in last year's Vuelta was 45,183m.

Stage 17 is my favourite. Sprint stage with no categorized climbs, vertical gain: 2820m

 

[veji11]

Great work as always
By any chance, do you guys have data about the total vertical gain in GTs? I mean, not just including the top 15 climbs

You probably want to have a cutoff, say only categorised climbs or something, because otherwise you can have a stage with 1500m climb overall that the riders never notice : going 2% up or flat is the same for pro riders, it just has about the same amoung of impact that wind would have.

 

[Viskovitz]

Great work as always
By any chance, do you guys have data about the total vertical gain in GTs? I mean, not just including the top 15 climbs

Only the Vuelta offers the data, an it isn't a very reliable one. I suppose the job could be done with one of the track webs that estimate vertical gain, drawing every stage and comparing. The overall data may be off that way, but it could be use to compare the 3 at least.

 

[ILovecycling]

nice reading,thanks

 

[icefire]

Galibier 1933m drop? AFAIK, that's the elevation difference between the summit and the start of the climb, but this ignores the extra 160m of climbing to balance the descent from Telegraphe to Valloire -> ~2100m.
By the same principle, Glandon S is missing 180m of climbing.

Regarding the so called APM coefficient for measuring a climb's difficulty, if this link is the reference for its computation, 1km @ 19% is equal to 20km @ 5% and 10km @ 7%. That it's based on what, exactly? Because it looks like high gradients are highly overrated. Is this the brainchild of Guillen?

 

[Dr. Juice]

Monte Ologno - Il Colle ...shows 15 km with 6,xx % while it's basically 10 km 9% ..then up and down to the summit.

Maths should only be a helping tool when judging the difficulty of the climbs - nothing more.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Maths should only be a helping tool when judging the difficulty of the climbs - nothing more.

It's also useful when building a bridge.
(but that's where I draw the line as well)

 

[sir fly]

One of the rare interesting threads here lately.
Chapeau, Viskovitz.
And to give my humble contribution to the topic, I won't say that the Tour is the most mountainous, we've knew it the moment we learnt there's no itt in the race, but I have to note that the Tour will demand the most endurance... it could turn into the war of attrition for both the leaders and the domestiques.
Giro, with it's long itt and less demanding mountains, could become a defensive competition. My hopes lie on Aru's shoulders and his climbing talent to animate every summit.
Vuelta, although not as demanding as the Tour and Giro, will be won by the strongest and best recovered man in the peloton.