• 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!

How much time does extra weight cost on Alpe dÂ’Huez?

Aug 18, 2009
134
0
0
Visit site
Pretty amateur test I must say.... His wattage was highest for the climb in which he was on the lightest bike, so that could have accounted for some of the time difference as well... Working the other way, wouldn't his times be likely to decrease (as he warms up) then increase (as he fatigues)? Running 4 tests in one day seems kinda ridiculous....I'd say the results are pretty rough!
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
ellobodelmar.spaces.live.com
Ad Rock said:
Pretty amateur test I must say.... His wattage was highest for the climb in which he was on the lightest bike, so that could have accounted for some of the time difference as well... Working the other way, wouldn't his times be likely to decrease (as he warms up) then increase (as he fatigues)? Running 4 tests in one day seems kinda ridiculous....I'd say the results are pretty rough!

My biggest concern was the water in the tyres. would it be a combo of water and air? would 900ml of water fill up a 700c tube? wonder if iphone has an app for that. How much water would it take to get 100psi in a 700x23 tyre.
Sure make it easy to find a puncture though;)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Ad Rock said:
Pretty amateur test I must say.... His wattage was highest for the climb in which he was on the lightest bike, so that could have accounted for some of the time difference as well... Working the other way, wouldn't his times be likely to decrease (as he warms up) then increase (as he fatigues)? Running 4 tests in one day seems kinda ridiculous....I'd say the results are pretty rough!
agree it was an amateurish test but i would not dismiss it's value out of hand as you did because the author did not pretend it was anything of academic pedigree and, most importantly, it did provide some valuable comparative data.

where i'd criticize or better said wished it was mentioned or studied is the following:

(i) the article never mentioned specific details about the wattage. if it was average wattage (which i suspect was the case) it can be tricky and fraught with errors. For example the relative contribution of of standing on the pedals can skew the wattage considerably.
(ii) all tested scenarios are pretty easy to capture quite accurately by the modern formulas. after all, it's just a newtonian physics case. the real issue worth studying is the effect of biomass not the static dead weight. it makes a big difference.