It was the first time, no experience, no idea what his limits where, etc.Bag_O_Wallet said:Perhaps Pinot was holding back a bit for the following stage - which he won.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
It was the first time, no experience, no idea what his limits where, etc.Bag_O_Wallet said:Perhaps Pinot was holding back a bit for the following stage - which he won.
Merckx index said:From the second link I posted previously:
luckyboy said:From Uriage-les-Bains right?
Armstrong was 47.46 from there to the top in 2001
ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily · 25m
#TDF, Stage 13. Chamrousse (18.10 km, 7.36 %, 1333 m) | prov.
Vincenzo Nibali: 50:03, 21.70 Kph, VAM 1598 m/h, 5.84 W/kg [DrF]
Alex Simmons/RST said:was that a study that was done to compared VAM methods to actual power for a group of cyclists?
I read that study and it was pretty clear they felt the estimation errors for riders in road race climbs would be no where near that precise as they are subject to many variables.
Interesting. 5.84 w/kg seems reasonable enough. 2:17 off Armstrong's TT time and 1:17 off Ullrich's doesn't seem reasonable at all.
Thoughts? Numbers accurate for time and w/kg? Interesting stage.
Merckx index said:Armstrong's power by VAM would be 6.11 watts/kg, which is believable, at least for some riders.
Unless there was a stiff headwind, and it seems that definitely was not the case, Nibs' time does seem quite reasonable.
red_flanders said:Interesting. 5.84 w/kg seems reasonable enough. 2:17 off Armstrong's TT time and 1:17 off Ullrich's doesn't seem reasonable at all.
Thoughts? Numbers accurate for time and w/kg? Interesting stage.
Afrank said:There's only one conclusion we can draw from that 5.84...NIBALI IS CLEAN!!!
Dear Wiggo said:His performance was, that's certain.
Merckx index said:I don’t know what you are referring to when you say “that study”. The link I provided simply shows the correlation of values derived from his method to SRM values. If that is what you mean by “that study”, then I saw nothing there that indicated he thought his values would not be that precise. If you are referring to some other study, I don’t know which one that is, and how it’s relevant to the original linked study.
Dear Wiggo said:His performance was, that's certain.
observer said:Just a quick question, would you guys expect a TT time or a normal race time to be faster?
I get that TT it is full on the whole time, but then again you don't have team mates setting a tempo
SundayRider said:TT for sure, fully fueled and hydrated at the start haven't ridden 150K beforehand so obviously much fresher physically and mentally. Also no slowing down to watch for attacks, team mates positioning etc.
2004 was ITT up ADH:SundayRider said:TT for sure, fully fueled and hydrated at the start haven't ridden 150K beforehand so obviously much fresher physically and mentally. Also no slowing down to watch for attacks, team mates positioning etc.
indianfanboy said:Froome and Talansky climbed the stage to Risoul in the Dauphine last year in around 33 minutes and Today Nibali took around 36 minutes to climb
Not very fast
thehog said:I'm enjoying the new clean cycling.
thehog said:Scratch that.
->
Station de Risoul
2014:12,6 km@6,9%---31:40---average speed 23.87 km/h (Vincenzo Nibali)-RECORD
2013:13,9 km@6,7%---36:47---average speed 22.67 km/h(Froome-Talansky)
2010:12,8 km@6,9%---32:36---average speed 23.56 km/h(Nairo Quintana)
2010:12,8 km@6,9%---34:21---average speed 22.36 km/h(Nicolas Vogondy)
http://www.climbing-records.com/2014/07/new-record-of-speed-on-risoul.html
red_flanders said:Do we know what specifically accounts for the different distances and gradients? Difficult comparison otherwise.