Vincenzo Nibali

[deValtos]

Sorry if you were just explaining how Nibali was faster because of weight in a thread where people are defending or accusing Nibali of doping...because that's what's happening here junior...or can't you read.

Full *** indeed...

I said nothing of the sort, but please continue falling over yourself to justify your initial mistake, it's quite amusing.

 

[sittingbison]

Steady gentle(wo)men, steady....Keep calm and carry on

Cheers
Bison

 

[RownhamHill]

What's depressing about it? I love Nibali

Just the underlying sense in the post that it's still the doctors competing with the riders more or less as avatars for the doing programmes. Similarly I love Berti but you can make a similar doping narrative for his career arc, and it depresses me to think that his resurgence this year really might be purely attributable to an ex Sky coach. (Although whatever happens, we'll always have Fuente De (is that the right name/spelling!))

 

[Gavandope]

The truth about Nibali is staring us in the face people. I'd love to believe the rebuttals but I trust my eyes far more than words - which are wind.

That applies to any rider who activates warp drive seated up a nasty climb looking like they're in as much stress as the Dali lama.

 

[RownhamHill]

I think we would. Motors would be a whole different level of cheating and seen as that by the whole peloton, not like doping, which is so internalized as to be, historically, a non-issue.

I'm pretty sure I could win the tour if I happened to be riding a motor bike.

 

[Race Radio]

I'd never expect Pinotti to call Nibali out, or anyone else for that matter.

Yet another stupid garbage post

 

[sittingbison]

Steady gentle(wo)men, steady....Keep calm and carry on

Cheers
Bison

Good post bison

Come on fellas, leave the trolling and baiting EACH OTHER at the door, and concentrate on dissecting the performance of squalo

 

[Franklin]

Indurain on a steel bike in 1994 vs a carbon bike of Nibali, that should be good for a minute or so wouldnt you think?

1. Bike weight
2. Bike stiffness
3. Aerodynamical wheels. Because yes, aerodynamics count quite a bit at lower speeds (and they aren't that low for pro's). turning point Telekom 1996 with ADA/Lightweights.
4. And if we look to the prenineties: Cadence.

Riders truly should be faster than in the nineties and quite a bit faster than in the eightties. And that's without new training methods /nutritional theories.

I'm certainly not waving away doping as we all know what happened (and almost certainly still happens), but yeah, climbing speeds should have gone up quite significantly.

 

[sniper]

I think we would. Motors would be a whole different level of cheating and seen as that by the whole peloton, not like doping, which is so internalized as to be, historically, a non-issue.

good point.

The truth about Nibali is staring us in the face people. I'd love to believe the rebuttals but I trust my eyes far more than words - which are wind.

That applies to any rider who activates warp drive seated up a nasty climb looking like they're in as much stress as the Dali lama.

yeah, that's a huge give-away if you ask me.
we've seen that effortlessness before and never did it lie to us.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The difference between aero wheels and box section rims when climbing an 8% mountain at 20km/hr is going to be closer to zero than can be reliably measured in terms of the difference in power.

 

[Franklin]

Oh come on, you know they go closer to 20M/HR than 20KM/HR at 8%, don't start trolling.

Also, I assume you also know very well that aero actually becomes more important at lower speeds due to the prolonged effort.

Here's for example Zipp's research:

http://www.zipp.com/_media/pdfs/technology/revolutionary_speed.pdf

Or if you want to calculate it yourself:

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/componentaerodynamics.aspx

Closer to zero... you of all people as expert on physiology and cyling knows a lot better than to say such nonsense

 

[jackie]

we've seen that effortlessness before and never did it lie to us.

Yes that's why I asked a few posts before about the feet angle. It's strange.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh come on, you know they go closer to 20M/HR than 20KM/HR at 8%, don't start trolling.

Please show me a single climb of 8% raced at 32km/hr before you go throwing trolling accusations around.

The record up Hautacam by Mr 60% is 23km/hr.

Pull your head in.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Speeds and areo don't matter anywhere near as much when climbing. Try reading my post again, where I quite clearly say "difference in power". The aero component of the power required when climbing an 8% climb is < 5%.

The aero components of wheels in a complete rider + wheels + bike system is 10%.

So the difference when climbing is 10% of 5% - or .5%.

Now consider the riding style of Horner, who is standing. His aero wheel difference drops even lower.

400W climb at .5% difference is 2 W. I dare you to measure that reliably. PM gold standard SRM is 1% accuracy claimed.

 

[Franklin]

Speeds and areo don't matter anywhere near as much when climbing.

Except all data crushes this with Thor's hammer. We are discussing Nibs times at Hautacam, now move him up 20 seconds and this forum would be frothing at the mouth how alien his times are. Move him down 20 seconds and he would be in a more human range.

On Hautacam, of course you and I both know that the speeds drops at the steeper sections, which are over 10% and that affects the average significantly. Also, you know very well that Aero is always helping, not just at higher speeds. Indeed, you most likely also know very well that at lower speeds the gains are even bigger due to the prolonged riding time.

Also, I wonder why the climbing style of Horner is argued when we are discussing Nibali with his rather stable sit low climbing style?

The power argument is a red herring when we are looking at absolute climbing times. Indeed, we aren't even measuring his power as we do not have access to his power files... so I dare you to measure anything reliable. Seriously.. misdirection at it's finest. And why? All because I stated the fact that aerodynamics have improved and will have impacted climbing times.

I truly wonder what your problem is with solid data and science when it shows speeds should be quite a bit higher than in Indurain's time. Contrary to what you state about immeasureable gains, aero (and weight) gains are indeed measurable. So why deny this part of the equation?

And no, Nibali is most likely not a clean rider. But it's disgustng when people pretend to measure and pretend to use wattages to show how allien a performance is but toss out of the window things like weight and aerodynamics.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Except all data crushes this with Thor's hammer. We are discussing Nibs times at Hautacam, now move him up 20 seconds and this forum would be frothing at the mouth how alien his times are. Move him down 20 seconds and he would be in a more human range.

On Hautacam, of course you and I both know that the speeds drops at the steeper sections, which are over 10% and that affects the average significantly. Also, you know very well that Aero is always helping, not just at higher speeds. Indeed, you most likely also know very well that at lower speeds the gains are even bigger due to the prolonged riding time.

Also, I wonder why the climbing style of Horner is argued when we are discussing Nibali with his rather stable sit low climbing style?

The power argument is a red herring when we are looking at absolute climbing times. Indeed, we aren't even measuring his power as we do not have access to his power files... so I dare you to measure anything reliable. Seriously.. misdirection at it's finest. And why? All because I stated the fact that aerodynamics have improved and will have impacted climbing times.

I truly wonder what your problem is with solid data and science when it shows speeds should be quite a bit higher than in Indurain's time. Contrary to what you state about immeasureable gains, aero (and weight) gains are indeed measurable. So why deny this part of the equation?

And no, Nibali is most likely not a clean rider. But it's disgustng when people pretend to measure and pretend to use wattages to show how allien a performance is but toss out of the window things like weight and aerodynamics.

If you've finished lying to yourself, go back and read what YOU wrote. You said aero wheels. I disagreed that aero wheels up a climb will make a measurable difference to any pro climber.

Now your post is a rant about aero this and aero that, ignoring the only thing I disagreed with: aero wheels making a discernible difference up an 8% climb.

Oh and while you're rereading your post. Feel free to apologise for idiotically saying the pros - any of them - ride up 8% gradients at 32km/hr.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh come on, you know they go closer to 20M/HR than 20KM/HR at 8%, don't start trolling.

Here's what 32km/hr looks like up an 8% climb:

The frontal area is the same as the one used by veloclinic et al when calculating VAM for the various climbs they analyse.

Forces On Rider

Frontal Area 0.35 m2
Coefficient Wind Drag 0.50 dimensionless
Air Density 1.226 kg/m3
Weight 74.0 kg
Coefficient of Rolling 0.004 dimensionless
Grade 0.080 decimal
Wind Resistance 8.5 kg m/s2
Rolling Resistance 2.9 kg m/s2
Slope Force 58.1 kg m/s2
Cadence 100. rev/min
Crank Length 173. mm
Pedal Speed 1.81 m/s
Average Pedal Force 342.2 kg m/s2
Effective Pedaling Range 70. degree
Effective Pedal Force 879.9 kg m/s2
Speed 8.90 m/s
Power 618.2 watts

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

618W

I did a 67kg rider with a 7kg bike.

That's 9.2W/kg.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Now let's break it down:

All the same parameters before, but at 21km/hr:

Wind Resistance 3.6 kg m/s2
Rolling Resistance 2.9 kg m/s2
Slope Force 58.1 kg m/s2
Total forces: 64.6 kg m/s2

Power 376.6 watts

Total wind resistance accounts for 3.6/64.6 = 5.6% of the total system.

That's rider + bike + wheels.

The wheels are less than 10% of the aero impact. So you're looking at pretty much no difference in terms of power required to go uphill going from box section to aero wheels.

 

[Franklin]

If you've finished lying to yourself,

Ah yes, the insults are coming. Point out the lies... oh wait, I use facts. Nice try DW, nice try.

go back and read what YOU wrote. You said aero wheels. I disagreed that aero wheels up a climb will make a measurable difference to any pro climber.

And your disagreement is proven to be flat out false.

Now your post is a rant about aero this and aero that, ignoring the only thing I disagreed with: aero wheels making a discernible difference up an 8% climb.

And yet I post data that it does make a discernible difference. Denying science is unbecoming, wouldn't you agree?

Oh and while you're rereading your post. Feel free to apologise for idiotically saying the pros - any of them - ride up 8% gradients at 32km/hr.

I appologize to you specifically, then again when I'm wrong I do just that. So let's go back to the posts now shall we?

1. I assume you appologize by the idiotic statement that pro's ride 20kph on 8%?
2. I can expect another appology for denying the cold hard fact that aero helps at all speeds and certainly with climbing?

Because in the end it's undeniable that awrodynamics have not only a measurable effect, they also directly contribute to the standings of rider on Hautacam. Denying this is not only denying science, it's also degrading this discussion.

Denial in the face of hard science, it's amusing, but soooo 1615AD.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

1. I assume you appologize by the idiotic statement that pro's ride 20kph on 8%?

Really? You say that they ride at 618W and then say that I am wrong in saying they ride at 20km/hr up 8% climbs?

#TDF, Hautacam (13.33 km) Vincenzo Nibali
2008: 41:12 = 19.4km/hr
2014: 37:20 = 21.3km/hr

I can see how saying they ride up at 20km/hr is correct.

You're welcome.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I appologize to you specifically, then again when I'm wrong I do just that. So let's go back to the posts now shall we?

No, you didn't. Or if you did, it was in invisible ink.

Because in the end it's undeniable that awrodynamics have not only a measurable effect, they also directly contribute to the standings of rider on Hautacam. Denying this is not only denying science, it's also degrading this discussion.

Once again, for those who are hard of reading: noone is saying awrodynamics have no measurable effect. In fact, if you read the post just above, it was pointed out aero impact: total system of rider + bike + wheels is 5.6% on the energy being expended by the rider.

All I am saying is aero wheels have no measurable effect on performance climbing an 8% gradient at 20km/hr. I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand what I am saying and why you have to respond, yet again, as if I am saying aerodynamics do not matter. I have never written that.

 

[Franklin]

Really? You say that they ride at 618W and then say that I am wrong in saying they ride at 20km/hr up 8% climbs?

#TDF, Hautacam (13.33 km) Vincenzo Nibali
2008: 41:12 = 19.4km/hr
2014: 37:20 = 21.3km/hr

I can see how saying they ride up at 20km/hr is correct.

You're welcome.

Hop and scotch is a fun game isn't it DW?

How about the 10%+ stretches that affect the average? I pointed that out already, but you're welcome

And considering all I argued is that climbing times are faster nowadays due to aerodynamics. Sitting here grinning quite confident considering the hard data. It's just amazing you still fight the facts tooth and nail. I do wonder why though... are we now going to argue that bicycle weight doesn't matter?

How about that appology DW? I'm am big guy, now how about your appology?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And yet I post data that it does make a discernible difference. Denying science is unbecoming, wouldn't you agree?

You posted no scientific data. FYI. Where in my definition, a link is not data. It's a link to data.

 

[Franklin]

No, you didn't. Not until prompted.

I have to thank you for gracefully asking me to appologize to you for being wrong on climbing speeds. Your fine manners are what put you above reproach.

Funny enough I usually feel the need to appologize in a discussion, but simply concede the point. But considering you are fully entitled to an appology as being wrong affects you on a personal level I did just that. Sadly I did not appologize untill you demanded it, as was your right

I'll try to remember this one: when someone is wrong in a disccusion with DW they should publicly appologize. The nerve people have to be wrong needs to be publicly castized. Simple acknowledging someone is wrong is just unacceptable.

Btw, where's your public appology that aero does not matter?

 

[Franklin]

You posted no scientific data. FYI. Where in my definition, a link is not data. It's a link to data.

Ah yes, YOUR definition. I appologize again. Shall I contact Zipp to publicly appologize to you as well?

The things I learn today... aerodynamics do not count as it's data supplied by a link. Thanks DW, you are certainly showing me your character.