Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1120 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

CTQ said:
Alpe73 said:
DanielSong39 said:
It's a 1000+ watt acceleration over an 18% gradient for 30 seconds.

Goes from ~400 watts to 1000+ in less than 5 seconds without causing the bike to sway.

Hmmmm. 18% .... hmmmmmmm 18%?

WhereTF is the 18% on Ventoux out of Bedoin?

Just askin.
https://www.cols-cyclisme.com/provence/france/mont-ventoux-depuis-bedoin-c34.htm

Sorry in French , but number is still number . No 18 %
My French is still pretty poor but from your link:

% Maximal : 10.8%
Can you screenshoot the 18% please, I can't see it anywhere.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
CTQ said:
Alpe73 said:
DanielSong39 said:
It's a 1000+ watt acceleration over an 18% gradient for 30 seconds.

Goes from ~400 watts to 1000+ in less than 5 seconds without causing the bike to sway.

Hmmmm. 18% .... hmmmmmmm 18%?

WhereTF is the 18% on Ventoux out of Bedoin?

Just askin.
https://www.cols-cyclisme.com/provence/france/mont-ventoux-depuis-bedoin-c34.htm

Sorry in French , but number is still number . No 18 %
My French is still pretty poor but from your link:

% Maximal : 10.8%
Can you screenshoot the 18% please, I can't see it anywhere.
I took it as meaning there is 'No 18%' on the image.

10.8% is the max.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
King Boonen said:
CTQ said:
Alpe73 said:
DanielSong39 said:
It's a 1000+ watt acceleration over an 18% gradient for 30 seconds.

Goes from ~400 watts to 1000+ in less than 5 seconds without causing the bike to sway.

Hmmmm. 18% .... hmmmmmmm 18%?

WhereTF is the 18% on Ventoux out of Bedoin?

Just askin.
https://www.cols-cyclisme.com/provence/france/mont-ventoux-depuis-bedoin-c34.htm

Sorry in French , but number is still number . No 18 %
My French is still pretty poor but from your link:

% Maximal : 10.8%
Can you screenshoot the 18% please, I can't see it anywhere.
I took it as meaning there is 'No 18%' on the image.

10.8% is the max.
That makes more sense, I was reading No as an abbreviation for number due to the capital.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
Ok, let's have some context here. Froome is going around that corner literally only five seconds after attacking Contador. Of course, he's going superfast.

(Go and look at the stage again - Froome goes from Contador to Quintana in about a minute. There's only one corner like that - I've teed it up for you: https://youtu.be/XOHBIEh9FSU?t=1974).
Linking to that clip is only helping the argument that he's using a motor. Proof? No. Comically unbelievable acceleration? Yep. Covered many times over.
Red ... pal. You’ve ridden the Ventoux, yourself, right?

And ... you were/are of the caliber (of rider) ... ie. pro or semi pro ... so that you could easily discern the acceleration potential of pro riders.

Just askin, pal.
Well that goes for you too then! You are also uniquely unqualified to discern whether or not that was ridiculous.

PS - It was.

John Swanson
Ok, never been a Pro, but i do ride a bike and i am a bit of a data geek when it comes to power. So i'll have a go at answering wether i thought the accelerations were 'ridiculous' or not...

It’s a while since I’ve watched the whole climb, but here’s what I remember from the video which overlaid his power data to the footage…

Most of the climb was spent between 300 and 400w, a few sections slightly higher reacting to steepening gradients, a few sections slightly lower riding in wheels. All perfectly normal for a rider with a reported threshold of around 420 watts.

Then of course we have the attacks, the cause of all the suspicion. When he drops Contador is a typical example of this and I have just rewatched this clip.

Again, he’s riding along between 300-400w, then bang….mega cadence, mega watts. In my experience, power spikes almost instantly when you attack, it doesn't gradually climb up, unless that's what you're trying to do. He peaks above 1000w for a few brief seconds. There’s then a drop in the wattage, but a very linear drop. 1000, 900, 800, 700, 600,600, 500, 400. All of this over the course of about 20 seconds.

But here’s the thing. I can do that. Most people who ride a bike with any intent can hit 1000w briefly. Admittedly, I’m a good few kg heavier than Froome, and I couldn’t do it two thirds of the way up Ventoux, especially with 200km already in my legs. But then again I’m not a WT pro. But that 20 second burst in terms of pure watts, I can do that.

He then continues to ride at 400-450w for 30secs or so to get on Quintana’s wheel. I couldn’t do that! For me this is what's exceptional, not the acceleration itself.

He repeats these bursts several times over the course of the climb, ultimately to drop Quintana. Now what is exceptional about the performance on the climb is how he recovers from these bursts. He’s able to follow up short intense highly anaerobic efforts, by dropping back down again but continuing to ride at a high tempo averaging between 350-450 watts. I couldn’t do that, I need a recovery period after efforts like that. But then again I’m not a WT pro.

Thing is, this is highly trainable. The ability to clear lactic acid from the legs built up during anaerobic efforts whilst still riding at high tempo close to threshold. It’s the basis of many good training sessions. Over/Under intervals taken to the extreme.

So, Froome on Ventoux 2013 was an exceptional performance. I expect top level athletes to put on exceptional performances. That’s not to say I’m convinced he wasn’t and isn’t doping. Traditional doping promoting incredible powers of short term recovery and endurance? Probable i'd say. I just don’t think what he did was impossible to do without doping and or a motor.

And I’ve never been sold on the motor doping story. That’s just an opinion. We’ve all got one and they’ll continue to be different in the absence of proof.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
This is a very good post in general and a good response to hitch's post. Hope you're not accused of trolling.
 
MartinGT said:
This clip also from a different angle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI
That's a good angle.

Notice the drop in cadence after the initial burst? Notice he almost stops pedalling at one point, just for a brief fraction of a second? See him sit up very slightly, just waiting for the flood of lactic acid in his legs to ease up just a little before he starts to get back in to a high tempo rhythm? Recovering at threshold! Ouch!!

Or maybe he's just faking all of that to cover up the motor use :confused:

That really is a great angle...
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
This is a very good post in general and a good response to hitch's post. Hope you're not accused of trolling.
thanks. no, no trolling. with Hitch we argued a bit about froome/sky in the past but we´re fine.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
Ok, let's have some context here. Froome is going around that corner literally only five seconds after attacking Contador. Of course, he's going superfast.

(Go and look at the stage again - Froome goes from Contador to Quintana in about a minute. There's only one corner like that - I've teed it up for you: https://youtu.be/XOHBIEh9FSU?t=1974).
Linking to that clip is only helping the argument that he's using a motor. Proof? No. Comically unbelievable acceleration? Yep. Covered many times over.
Red ... pal. You’ve ridden the Ventoux, yourself, right?

And ... you were/are of the caliber (of rider) ... ie. pro or semi pro ... so that you could easily discern the acceleration potential of pro riders.

Just askin, pal.
Well that goes for you too then! You are also uniquely unqualified to discern whether or not that was ridiculous.

PS - It was.

John Swanson
John, John, John ... my brutha.

I've ridden the Ventoux ... more than once ... yet that only makes me part of a cast of scores, nay, hundreds of thousands who have done so ... from pros to chubby cheek warriors. As humble as some of us riders may be ... at least we are "witness" to the fact that there's no "18%" up there. (I know you didn't throw out that hallucination of a # ... someone else did.Someone who quickly saw 10.8 ... and said ... rounded up ... that makes ( hmmmm) ... 18%. So let's say ... a max of 11%.

So your scientific conclusion ... based on your extensive research ... is that Dawg's acceleration was "ridiculous" ... (AKA 'motor').

I accept your admonition ... that I am scientifically unqualified to rebut an accusation of Dawg's "ridiculous acceleration" on dee Ventoux. Then, I have no need to rebut.

The ball's in your court ... but your science is no longer cool, John.
 
brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
Ok, let's have some context here. Froome is going around that corner literally only five seconds after attacking Contador. Of course, he's going superfast.

(Go and look at the stage again - Froome goes from Contador to Quintana in about a minute. There's only one corner like that - I've teed it up for you: https://youtu.be/XOHBIEh9FSU?t=1974).
Linking to that clip is only helping the argument that he's using a motor. Proof? No. Comically unbelievable acceleration? Yep. Covered many times over.
The original clip, you can make a credible argument from both sides of the motor debate. The 2 second clip, the starting point for this thread within a thread? Now that's comically unbelievable.
What you can't make a credible argument for is that it was in any way possible clean.

thehog said:
Froome lying again:

Tim Wellens (Lotto-Soudal) was among the most outspoken. He told Belgian journalists Wednesday that the reaction inside the peloton to Froome’s presence is not as rosy as the Sky captain would paint it.

“Froome said he has seen incredible support inside the peloton,” Wellens said. “That’s not what I’ve experienced.”

Wellens has been among the most critical voices about the Froome case since it blew open via a leak in December. Over the winter, Wellens even equated taking puffs on asthma medication with cheating. Last year, Wellens abandoned the 2017 Tour de France after refusing to use a TUE to treat an allergic reaction to heat and pollen.

“If you did a poll, nine out of 10 riders would say it’s better that he’s not here,” Wellens said Wednesday. “On camera, a lot of riders are afraid to say what they think. Behind the cameras, they are not so happy about it.”

Speaking to Cycling Pro Net at the Volta ao Algarve in nearby Portugal, Katusha-Alpecin rider Tony Martin also had harsh words: “It’s super-bad for cycling. I absolutely don’t understand Team Sky and Froome that he comes back before this case is clear. It’s a shame.”
http://www.velonews.com/2018/02/news/road/top-riders-contradict-froomes-claims-of-peloton-camaraderie_457279
My first reaction to Froomes comments was surprise, then wondering if it was in any way true. Just a den of liars.
Well...you can. Indeed many have. It's just that having made up your own mind, you choose not to give any credibility to anyone who may try to present an 'argument' conflicting with your opinion. That's different. That's blurring the lines between opinion and fact.
The key word there is “credible”. Yes, I have made up my mind. The sky is blue, grass is green and Froomes ride on Ventoux was incredible. Literally.

I actually burst out laughing when I saw it live.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Ok, let's have some context here. Froome is going around that corner literally only five seconds after attacking Contador. Of course, he's going superfast.

(Go and look at the stage again - Froome goes from Contador to Quintana in about a minute. There's only one corner like that - I've teed it up for you: https://youtu.be/XOHBIEh9FSU?t=1974).[/quote]

Linking to that clip is only helping the argument that he's using a motor. Proof? No. Comically unbelievable acceleration? Yep. Covered many times over.[/quote]

The original clip, you can make a credible argument from both sides of the motor debate. The 2 second clip, the starting point for this thread within a thread? Now that's comically unbelievable.[/quote]

What you can't make a credible argument for is that it was in any way possible clean.

thehog said:
Froome lying again:

Tim Wellens (Lotto-Soudal) was among the most outspoken. He told Belgian journalists Wednesday that the reaction inside the peloton to Froome’s presence is not as rosy as the Sky captain would paint it.

“Froome said he has seen incredible support inside the peloton,” Wellens said. “That’s not what I’ve experienced.”

Wellens has been among the most critical voices about the Froome case since it blew open via a leak in December. Over the winter, Wellens even equated taking puffs on asthma medication with cheating. Last year, Wellens abandoned the 2017 Tour de France after refusing to use a TUE to treat an allergic reaction to heat and pollen.

“If you did a poll, nine out of 10 riders would say it’s better that he’s not here,” Wellens said Wednesday. “On camera, a lot of riders are afraid to say what they think. Behind the cameras, they are not so happy about it.”

Speaking to Cycling Pro Net at the Volta ao Algarve in nearby Portugal, Katusha-Alpecin rider Tony Martin also had harsh words: “It’s super-bad for cycling. I absolutely don’t understand Team Sky and Froome that he comes back before this case is clear. It’s a shame.”
http://www.velonews.com/2018/02/news/road/top-riders-contradict-froomes-claims-of-peloton-camaraderie_457279
My first reaction to Froomes comments was surprise, then wondering if it was in any way true. Just a den of liars.[/quote]

Well...you can. Indeed many have. It's just that having made up your own mind, you choose not to give any credibility to anyone who may try to present an 'argument' conflicting with your opinion. That's different. That's blurring the lines between opinion and fact.[/quote]

The key word there is “credible”. Yes, I have made up my mind. The sky is blue, grass is green and Froomes ride on Ventoux was incredible. Literally.

I actually burst out laughing when I saw it live.[/quote]

indeed!, wasnt there an old, controversial tour winner that used to say to journalists (well, walsh and kimmage really) ''i feel sorry for you , that you dont believe in impossible dreams'' , just cant think of his name right now..... :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
DanielSong39 said:
It's a 1000+ watt acceleration over an 18% gradient for 30 seconds.

Goes from ~400 watts to 1000+ in less than 5 seconds without causing the bike to sway.

Hmmmm. 18% .... hmmmmmmm 18%?

WhereTF is the 18% on Ventoux out of Bedoin?

Just askin.
It's ~22% where Quintana is here:



Of course, the inside of a hairpin bend is not used for a climb's 'official' maximum gradient.

Edit: According to cyclingcols.com, the steepest 100m are 12.9% and the steepest 200m are 12.0%.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
I think I recall laughing at his acceleration on Ventoux as well. Of course he added the genius distraction of causing another controversy 5 minutes later...
Lance Armstrong was laughing at his acceleration on PSM and that was rather tame in comparison.

Then there was Froome's 'ascent' in 2016 Ventoux... unfortunately the stage was neutralized and it wasn't so funny anymore.
 
Sep 28, 2015
38
0
3,580
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
I've never believed or insinuated that Froome had a motor, and I don't really see what's wrong with the wattage as depicted in these video clips. Might question the source and motives of the 'leaked' SRM file, and whether it is accurately superimposed on the timing of the videos. How could I know whether this is accurate without having the file itself

I could do that... if I had not already been riding for four hours in the heat of July, and if I get to rest after the two minutes shown, without having to pursue and drop Quintana before the summit. Can do what is shown in the 2 minutes but not any of the race to get there in the first place, and not any of the part that follows the 2 minutes

Contador briefly matches Froome's 'kick', and then after the 5 seconds or so of (allegedly from leaked file) 500-600W effort, either Contador cannot go with him, or decides not to try, in the hope that Froome is bluffing. The problematic part is: that Contador is nowhere to be seen long after Froome has rounded the bend, where is he? meaning Froome has pulled away so quickly that Contador is out of the picture completely

This Ventoux finish by Froome is 'extraterrestrial' because it is not believable relative to the quality of the climber rivals who get dropped. Quintana was wasted at the summit, and suffered far more than Froome
I can tell you the overlay is quite good and was easy to make as Froome stops pedalling on the finish line, this zero in power data was easy to sync with the footage. After doing that I had no doubts the file was genuine because over 45 minutes, numbers matched perfectly Froome's race, including of course the alien attacks.

Wrt to Ventoux, much of the Bedoin side after St Esteve's hairpin (where the real climb begins) is in the 9.5-10.5% range, there are a few very short sections around 11-12%, nothing steeper. Froome's infamous bend is a bit flatter, maybe 7-8%, an average amateur would naturally accelerate there from 11 to 12 or 13 kmh ;) , after the turn it gets back to 8-9% before a flattish 6% where the finish was in 2016
 
Alpe73 said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
Ok, let's have some context here. Froome is going around that corner literally only five seconds after attacking Contador. Of course, he's going superfast.

(Go and look at the stage again - Froome goes from Contador to Quintana in about a minute. There's only one corner like that - I've teed it up for you: https://youtu.be/XOHBIEh9FSU?t=1974).
Linking to that clip is only helping the argument that he's using a motor. Proof? No. Comically unbelievable acceleration? Yep. Covered many times over.
Red ... pal. You’ve ridden the Ventoux, yourself, right?

And ... you were/are of the caliber (of rider) ... ie. pro or semi pro ... so that you could easily discern the acceleration potential of pro riders.

Just askin, pal.
Well that goes for you too then! You are also uniquely unqualified to discern whether or not that was ridiculous.

PS - It was.

John Swanson
John, John, John ... my brutha.

I've ridden the Ventoux ... more than once ... yet that only makes me part of a cast of scores, nay, hundreds of thousands who have done so ... from pros to chubby cheek warriors. As humble as some of us riders may be ... at least we are "witness" to the fact that there's no "18%" up there. (I know you didn't throw out that hallucination of a # ... someone else did.Someone who quickly saw 10.8 ... and said ... rounded up ... that makes ( hmmmm) ... 18%. So let's say ... a max of 11%.

So your scientific conclusion ... based on your extensive research ... is that Dawg's acceleration was "ridiculous" ... (AKA 'motor').

I accept your admonition ... that I am scientifically unqualified to rebut an accusation of Dawg's "ridiculous acceleration" on dee Ventoux. Then, I have no need to rebut.

The ball's in your court ... but your science is no longer cool, John.
you rode Ventoux my ass!!! Do you realize you have a whole 1km with an average gradient of 11%?! And of course you have hairpins where gradient touches 20%, as you would know if you rode them!
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
I've never believed or insinuated that Froome had a motor, and I don't really see what's wrong with the wattage as depicted in these video clips. Might question the source and motives of the 'leaked' SRM file, and whether it is accurately superimposed on the timing of the videos. How could I know whether this is accurate without having the file itself

I could do that... if I had not already been riding for four hours in the heat of July, and if I get to rest after the two minutes shown, without having to pursue and drop Quintana before the summit. Can do what is shown in the 2 minutes but not any of the race to get there in the first place, and not any of the part that follows the 2 minutes

Contador briefly matches Froome's 'kick', and then after the 5 seconds or so of (allegedly from leaked file) 500-600W effort, either Contador cannot go with him, or decides not to try, in the hope that Froome is bluffing. The problematic part is: that Contador is nowhere to be seen long after Froome has rounded the bend, where is he? meaning Froome has pulled away so quickly that Contador is out of the picture completely

This Ventoux finish by Froome is 'extraterrestrial' because it is not believable relative to the quality of the climber rivals who get dropped. Quintana was wasted at the summit, and suffered far more than Froome
A good analysis; we see it mostly the same i think.

Re Quintana....again i haven't watched this part of the stage for a while, but bar 2 attacks which broke Quintana, i recall Froome mostly riding at or sub threshold for most of the time they were close to each other. Remember Quintana attacked earlier and therefore wasn't he out on his own on the climb for much longer than Froome, who was working with other riders, including Porte, up until about 7k to go?

Possible Quintana paid for this when Froome caught him?

Either way, that clip of him at the summit is great, amazing how far these riders can push themselves when they need to
 
That is correct. The gradients listed are the average for each kilometre, rather than the max gradient for a given km. Some people are equally poor at mathematics as they are at spotting an absurd performance :cool:
 
thehog said:
That is correct. The gradients listed are the average for each kilometre, rather than the max gradient for a given km. Some people are equally poor at mathematics as they are at spotting an absurd performance :cool:
Hmmm....i got a stamped card that says i rode Ventoux, all 3 sides in one day. Yay me :cool:

Now, of course the point about average gradients is technically correct. But Ventoux, certainly from Bedoin, isn't a 'pitchy' climb. It's long, relentless, unchanging gradients. When it says average 10% for a given km, thats mostly made up of constant gradients close to 10%. That's what makes it such a ***, there's no respite after the first couple of K's.

WRT to hairpins, firstly there are very few, if any bends that i'd class as hairpins, not in the Alpine sense. I cant say categorically that there is not a single bit of a road on the climb that touches 18%, but i don't recall any and if there are they would have to be on the very extreme inside of a corner, and why on earth anyone would be riding a bike on such a line is beyond me.

The steepest bit of road always seems to be the final bend and ramp to the weather station, but maybe it just feels like that at the end of the climb....
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
CTQ said:
Alpe73 said:
DanielSong39 said:
It's a 1000+ watt acceleration over an 18% gradient for 30 seconds.

Goes from ~400 watts to 1000+ in less than 5 seconds without causing the bike to sway.

Hmmmm. 18% .... hmmmmmmm 18%?

WhereTF is the 18% on Ventoux out of Bedoin?

Just askin.
https://www.cols-cyclisme.com/provence/france/mont-ventoux-depuis-bedoin-c34.htm

Sorry in French , but number is still number . No 18 %
My French is still pretty poor but from your link:

% Maximal : 10.8%
Can you screenshoot the 18% please, I can't see it anywhere.
KB ... you can't see it because it does NOT exist.

Not having first hand knowledge/experience can be a drawback, sometimes DS saw 10.8% and rounded up to 18%. Honest mistake. Math is a ***, sometimes. :rolleyes:
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
I think I recall laughing at his acceleration on Ventoux as well. Of course he added the genius distraction of causing another controversy 5 minutes later...
Ventoux 2016 presumably?

Guess you were laughing just as hard at the others, Porte et.al, who were able to match his acceleration?
 
Sep 28, 2015
38
0
3,580
WRT to hairpins, firstly there are very few, if any bends that i'd class as hairpins, not in the Alpine sense. I cant say categorically that there is not a single bit of a road on the climb that touches 18%, but i don't recall any and if there are they would have to be on the very extreme inside of a corner, and why on earth anyone would be riding a bike on such a line is beyond me.
There's definitely nothing like 18% on Bedoin side, I climbed it with 34x28 and remember using twice the 34x32 when it went shortly around 12%, without struggling. On any 18% slope, I need the 34x32 AND I struggle ;-)
Hairpins, there are only two on Bedoin side (at the start in St Esteve, one other a few k before Chalet Reynard) , but at least 4 or five on the North side (Malaucene)
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
Alpe73 said:
DanielSong39 said:
It's a 1000+ watt acceleration over an 18% gradient for 30 seconds.

Goes from ~400 watts to 1000+ in less than 5 seconds without causing the bike to sway.

Hmmmm. 18% .... hmmmmmmm 18%?

WhereTF is the 18% on Ventoux out of Bedoin?

Just askin.
It's ~22% where Quintana is here:



Of course, the inside of a hairpin bend is not used for a climb's 'official' maximum gradient.

Edit: According to cyclingcols.com, the steepest 100m are 12.9% and the steepest 200m are 12.0%.
Just a friendly question ... have you been up there?

Maybe I'm confusing terminolgy ... "slope" vs "gradient" ... if I am, my bad. Slope, gradient whatever term cycling anouncers use ... where is the 18% or 22%. I'm ready to be schooled.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS