Vincenzo Nibali

[Dear Wiggo]

And considering all I argued is that climbing times are faster nowadays due to aerodynamics.

Uh huh

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.

So you're saying riders are going faster because they have aerodynamic wheels on 8% climbs where they average 20km/hr and because they pedal at a different cadence?

Really?

You know what? I'll leave you and your hop and your scotch coz I can see you're convinced of your own "science".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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?

You said I was trolling, remember? Despite the fact I quoted the actual speed of the riders.

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

Trolling.

Remember?

If you feel accusing someone of trolling when they are quoting actual, factual data is fine on a forum where such accusations are usually frowned upon, and then when you make a claim that in fact the riders ride at 9.2W/kg instead, in the same sentence as the one telling me I am trolling.

Well.

Forgive me for expecting at least a correction or acknowledgement that you were so way off base on both points (trolling and speed).

Anyway, have at it mate. I look forward to reading more of your "science", but won't try to set you straight.

 

[deValtos]

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

At speeds of 20kmph with super aero wheels you might save 1 watt at absolute best.

At higher speeds the benefits increase exponentially but at 20kmph ...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

At speeds of 20kmph with super aero wheels you might save 1 watt at absolute best.

At higher speeds the benefits increase exponentially but at 20kmph ...

And then consider that the rider is going uphill.

Along the flats, wind is the killer. Uphill, wind is almost inconsequential compared to gravity.

 

[Franklin]

So you're saying riders are going faster because they have aerodynamic wheels on 8% climbs where they average 20km/hr and because they pedal at a different cadence?

Really?

You know what? I'll leave you and your hop and your scotch coz I can see you're convinced of your own "science".

Amusingly we both know it's not my science, it's established physics and research by people a lot smarter than me. Nothing so mundane.
Secondly, I will repeat: the slower you go, the more time-advantage you will have from aero gear due to the prolonged effort. Again, not my mundane theories, but established science.

And on cadence? Yeah, higher cadence is better than lower cadence. In the eighties we used stupid gears.

 

[Franklin]

And then consider that the rider is going uphill.

Along the flats, wind is the killer. Uphill, wind is almost inconsequential compared to gravity.

Anyone who rode a commuter at 20kph can tell you that wind is anything but inconsequential at those speeds.

And to repeat; the slower you go the bigger the time gain from aerodynamics.

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/slow-vs-fast-riders.html

 

[deValtos]

And then consider that the rider is going uphill.

Along the flats, wind is the killer. Uphill, wind is almost inconsequential compared to gravity.

Just to clarify the gradient doesn't affect aerodynamics, only the speed. You need to put in the same work to overcome drag at 20kmph whether it's on the flat or up a 30% gradient. I think you understand but your post confused me a little here.

It is almost inconsequential at climbing speeds but not completely, still 20W (@20kmph) - 50W (@26kmph). Slightly altering a wheel is going to do jack **** when you only need 20W to overcome drag. However when Kittel is pushing 1700W (or whatever) in a sprint .. then yeah it's useful.

 

[roundabout]

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?

20 kmh up an 8% grade is 1600 VAM or 5.7 W/kg

Assuming 6 W/kg it is 1680 VAM or 21 kmh

So yeah, DW is right and you are wrong

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just to clarify the gradient doesn't affect aerodynamics, only the speed. You need to put in the same work to overcome drag at 20kmph whether it's on the flat or up a 30% gradient. I think you understand but your post confused me a little here.

It is almost inconsequential at climbing speeds but not completely, still 20W (@20kmph) - 50W (@26kmph). Slightly altering a wheel is going to do jack **** when you only need 20W to overcome drag. However when Kittel is pushing 1700W (or whatever) in a sprint .. then yeah it's useful.

Apologies.

I am talking specifically about the power differences availed of "new technology" in terms of % saved when using aerodynamic wheels vs older box section wheels, when climbing, at an 8% gradient.

So that 1W saving at 20km/hr along the flat is a higher % because the power required to do 20km/hr on the flat is so much less.

1W saving up an 8% climb where the gravity component is 14-15 x higher than the aero component means it is a significantly smaller % saving overall - due to the much higher power required to do 20km/hr.

 

[Gavandope]

good point.


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

Never has for me - since watching Big Mig/Banesto and getting told about a new blood booster drug by a roid guru who supplied body builders and top athletes while watching the 91 tour. With hindsight they had the jump on everyone for so long.

The stats nowadays help justify the eyes. Despite not being totally empirical as the riders won't provide the data to blacken themselves they aren't that far off to justify the smoking gun for me anyway.

If it looks like a dope, rides like a dope - it's a dope.

 

[Franklin]

It is almost inconsequential at climbing speeds but not completely

Almost correct, but still wrong. It's a substantial time difference.

Note: I do not argue weight is less important. But wheel aerodynamics at these speeds are most definitely measurable. And on the discussion of where Nibali ranks on the Hautacam ranking this counts.

And for the record: his headwind puts his time much more incredible than the time tells us. Still doesn't change the fact that the aerodynamics are important.

And to go back to my original point: The material Miguel used and Nibali used are different and Nibali certainly got quite a bit of time there. The denial is amusing, but it can't hold in the face of the research.

 

[Franklin]

So yeah, DW is right and you are wrong

Yes, I was wrong on the speed. Did I deny I was wrong?

However:

1. He's verifiable very wrong on the importance of aerodynamics.
2. He's also wrong on the 20kph on 8% as Hautacam is not a straight 8% at all.

So yeah, I am also right and DW is also wrong.

Now being wrong is no shame, but DW demanded an appology. He get's it *shrug*. I'm still awaiting an appology on the nonsense that aerodynamic wheels are not measurably affecting climbing times.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,

You're all right.... and wrong so move along plrase

Flogging a dead horse comes to mind

Cheers
Bison

 

[The Hitch]

I was prepared to believe in Nibali, this Tour performance is testing me though. I argue for Wiggins winning clean on a Tour that suited him, a weak opposition and a strong team to babysit him when it mattered. I think a similar argument could be made for Nibali, minus the babysitting of course!

Nibali has a significantly better track record at gts than Wiggins did.

 

[purcell]

.....

And to repeat; the slower you go the bigger the time gain from aerodynamics.

I have read many howlers here over the years, but this?

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read here.

 

[purcell]

And just before the start of the ITT, P&P are already setting the stage telling us how Nibali is really a very good TT'r and so we should expect a great result from him today .....

And there is Paul telling us he has feeling in his gut that Nibali is going to turn in a "special result"

 

[movingtarget]

Nibali Not Giving 100 %

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/nibali-yet-to-test-himself-20140724-3cige.html

 

[roundabout]

And just before the start of the ITT, P&P are already setting the stage telling us how Nibali is really a very good TT'r and so we should expect a great result from him today .....

And there is Paul telling us he has feeling in his gut that Nibali is going to turn in a "special result"

Paul has a lot of **** in his gut.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And just before the start of the ITT, P&P are already setting the stage telling us how Nibali is really a very good TT'r and so we should expect a great result from him today .....

And there is Paul telling us he has feeling in his gut that Nibali is going to turn in a "special result"

I am sure I heard him say Nibali is not a TTer and will suffer on that stage, when Nibbles was off the front dropping all the Cat 2 climbers in the race on the last MTF.

 

[purcell]

I am sure I heard him say Nibali is not a TTer and will suffer on that stage, when Nibbles was off the front dropping all the Cat 2 climbers in the race on the last MTF.

He did ... And then just before he left the start gate Paul said he was going to look to increase his lead today.

 

[BYOP88]

Nice Sunday afternoon coffee ride by Nibs today, if he tried he might have beaten Martin.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He did ... And then just before he left the start gate Paul said he was going to look to increase his lead today.

Yeah right, so it wasn't just my Southern Hemisphere sleep deprived brain hearing things.

Was it the last MTF stage?

I want to splice those 2 snippets together gfd and post them somewhere.

 

[Franklin]

I have read many howlers here over the years, but this?

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read here.

It's utterly counterintuitive... but this is solid math:

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/slow-vs-fast-riders.html

The Time difference is bigger because the whole ride takes longer. The % gain is bigger at higher speed due to higher wind resistance... but the timegain is bigger the slower you go.

So howler, ridiculous. Nope, perhaps read the links and some more about aerodynamics before throwing out these terms.

 

[proffate]

Uphill, wind is almost inconsequential compared to gravity.

I'd debate this. I used to think it was true but some online bike speed calculators[1][2] convinced me I was wrong. Then I started paying more attention to wind conditions (using weather websites and so forth) and found that wind did indeed have a huge effect on my times. OK, at 10%+ gradients, wind is not as important any more. But at a climb under 10%, wind matters hugely. A 10mph tailwind on a 5% grade is equivalent to a 15% boost in power when I'm riding at my threshold. Note that I would have to drop more than 15% weight to get the same effective boost in speed. If you have any recommendations for dropping 40 lbs when I'm already under 8% bf, I'm all ears...

This graph is also telling[3]. Sure, at 5%, gravity is 75% and air is 15%. But the wiggle room re: weight is tiny (pay $1000s for lightweight wheels, drop maybe 1% off your total weight if you're lucky). The wiggle room for aerodynamics is a lot greater, especially if you consider wind conditions. Even aside from weather, it's reasonable to think that tuning your position in a wind tunnel can give a big advantage, surely better than choosing an aero wheelset.

[1] http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/VAM.aspx
[2] http://bikecalculator.com/index.html
[3] http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd226/ASimmons/ResistanceforcesbyGradient.jpg

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'd debate this. I used to think it was true but some online bike speed calculators[1][2] convinced me I was wrong. Then I

I meant wind generated by the movement of the rider, not tailwinds / headwinds. I'm not saying a headwind or a tailwind makes no difference.

I showed on a previous page, at 8% and 21km/hr, the rider's battling 5.6% effort for the wind he generates due to his speed. 3.6 kg /m/s2 vs 58.1 for the gravity.

Whilst the headwind hurts you, I would like to see the difference in cooling of a headwind vs a tailwind. Always feel more comfortable on a long climb with a slight side / head than I do a direct tailwind - thanks to overheating etc. I find the slight headwind more cooling.

The wheels are inconsequential, IMO, as I have said countless times. The helmet would make a bigger difference. The rider's position the biggest difference. etc, etc.