Dekker_Tifosi said:Cobo had the lowest gearing of the favorites
The only one with an 34 inner blade
34x32
Wiggins rode 38x32, Froome and Mollema 36x28
I think that says a lot.
You're welcome.Zoncolan said:Thank you, halamala.
If your calculation is correct, that settles it for me.
He should join the likes of Ricco and Piepoli.
Zoncolan said:Yes, it does. It does explain why Wiggins almost came to a halt at one point.
However, it doesn't explain 6.2 W/kg. Unless you believe in the "miracle of cadence".![]()
Also possibly because he sat in the saddle on the 23% sections when the others didn't, how the heck is that even possible ?!Zoncolan said:Yes, it does. It does explain why Wiggins almost came to a halt at one point.
halamala said:Cobo and Piepoli @ Hautacam, Tour 2008
![]()
halamala said:Vuelta a Espana 2011, Stage 15, Final climb, Angliru
From 12.0 Km remaining to mountain points banner 0.5 Km remaining = Distance 11.5 Km
Juan Jose Cobo
Elevation / Höhenmeter [m] : 1194 m
Distance / Streckenlänge [Km] : 11.5 Km
Time in seconds / Fahrzeit in Sekunden [sec] : 2353 = 39 min 13 sec = 39:13
Weight rider / Gewicht Fahrer [kg] : 69 kg
Weight bicycle, clothes etc. / Gewicht Fahrrad [kg] : 8 kg
Grade / mittlere Seigung : 10.3 %
Average speed / mittlere Geschwindigkeit : 17.5 Km/h
Total weight / Gesamtgewicht : 77.0 kg
Power : 430.6 Watt
Power / kg : 6.2 Watt / kg
Polish said:Is it the "miracle of cadence" or the "science of cadence'?
Either way, I expect to be selling more SRAM 11-32 cassettes with their Medium Cage Rear Derailleurs and Compact Cranks.
Say Hallelujah.
Good God have mercy.
halamala said:You're welcome.
Don't worry.
Cobo and Piepoli @ Hautacam, Tour 2008
![]()
kielbasa said:Neither exists. Cadence is as subjective as comfort. Which is another way of saying "cadence is red herring" (PPP courtesy of RChung).
Polish said:But that goes back to my original question....
Does a rider generate less power spinning a lower gear versus mashing a higher gear assuming speeds are the same?
Are you saying the power is the same - spinning versus mashing?
Seems to me Mashing would require more power, everything else being equal.
Or at least spinning a lower gear would be more efficient on some climbs.
More efficient is good.
More efficient = more power it appears.
That said, I hope Cobo gets busted on the rest day and the Jersey goes to Froome lol.
TeamSkyFans said:effectively you are still putting out the same wattage.
If you have $2, it doesnt matter if its two dollar bills, or 20 ten cent peices, its still 2 dollars.
Polish said:Yes, same wattage per the equations.
But spinning watts and mashing watts affect a rider differently.
If Wiggins had a bailout gear today - he would have generated more watts by finishing a bit quicker.
Heck, if he reconned the climb a few extra times, he would have probably finished quicker with higher wattage too.
Oh well, live and learn
Polish said:Yes, same wattage per the equations.
But spinning watts and mashing watts affect a rider differently.
If Wiggins had a bailout gear today - he would have generated more watts by finishing a bit quicker.
Heck, if he reconned the climb a few extra times, he would have probably finished quicker with higher wattage too.
Oh well, live and learn
halamala said:Vuelta a Espana 2011, Stage 15, Final climb, Angliru
...
Source: [ http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm ]
Polish said:That said, I hope Cobo gets busted on the rest day and the Jersey goes to Froome lol.
Escarabajo said:We go back to the same question that is being asked on his thread constantly: Has he done this in the past? Again, I expect his numbers to be higher than 6 w/kg.
Escarabajo said:Froome’s numbers are suspicious for who he is. We go back to the same question that is being asked on his thread constantly: Has he done this in the past?
Escarabajo said:So if anything Froome's numbers should be higher. .
Escarabajo said:Thanks Halamala for your constant efforts.
Cobo's numbers should be more accurate than Froomes' because he had a steadier pace. Froome's numbers are more variable because of its constants accelerations and decelerations. Those things are never taken into account in the formula. For more constant gradient and less acute angles the values should be less variable and more reliable. So if anything Froome's numbers should be higher.
Cobo’s numbers are pretty damning unless he has the VO2 max of Merkx or Hinault. Froome’s numbers are suspicious for who he is. We go back to the same question that is being asked on his thread constantly: Has he done this in the past? Again, I expect his numbers to be higher than 6 w/kg.
Parrot23 said:I don't follow it closely, but only precedent I can see for Froome is one: the year in the Tour with Barloworld cycling when he was riding a fantastic mountain stage (think he was leading; haven't looked it up again) till he ran off the road on a descent (down some shale or something). Inexperience in descending or overexcited (which he claims to have been in the past; too impulsive, he says).
No it should be higher.Parrot23 said:...
I don't agree with that. If the more variable pacing hypothesis is correct on Froome's part, it would mean his average watts should be lower than a rider riding his own pace alone. The physiological demands are more stressful/less energy efficient with changes in pace, so the average mechanical output in watts should be lower (because he's "burning more matches", more high octane/anaerobic, etc.) not higher--taken in toto/on average.
Thanks.luckyboy said:Yeah it was Augustyn on the Cime de la Bonette-Restefond.
Vaughters just tweeted (at me) that he thinks the numbers for Cobo + Froome here might be a tad high and they're closer to 6.0 and 5.7. And he'll try and work it out on Tuesday.
https://twitter.com/#!/Vaughters/status/110526529179623425