Vincenzo Nibali

[Dear Wiggo]

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...

You should be riding as strong as 2 x 66kg Chris Froomes, right?

Stick to crits ;-)

 

[roundabout]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nibalis-journey-ends-in-tour-de-france-victory

Eh, ok.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

quoting a bike manufacturers opinion is not factual.

testing bikes in wind tunnels has little basis on what the relity of a stage might bring so the gains are way down.

One reason the UCI loves the TT bikes as they let the technology obfuscate results to avoid direct comparison with previous years.

 

[Arnout]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nibalis-journey-ends-in-tour-de-france-victory

Eh, ok.

Most notable news in this article is that videostores are still alive in Italy, who would've thought.

 

[sir fly]

But with the steps that have been taken since - I'm talking about targeted testing, biological passport and the MPCC - great progress has been made and the results came after that too. So maybe I have to say thanks to them, because if it wasn't for such targeted and stringent testing, maybe I wouldn't be here today.

An elegant spin.

 

[SeriousSam]

Pathetic. That's Sky territory. Nibali becoming more unlikable by the day.

 

[SafeBet]

Most notable news in this article is that videostores are still alive in Italy, who would've thought.

Maybe in Sicily

 

[sniper]

An elegant spin.

the truly sad thing about this is that there was apparently not a single reporter in the room to provide nibali with a rebuttal, e.g. by hinting at froome's tenerife tweet.

 

[sir fly]

the truly sad thing about this is that there was apparently not a single reporter in the room to provide nibali with a rebuttal, e.g. by hinting at froome's tenerife tweet.

Agree. I guess no one was willing to be a party pooper.
The statement is also arrogant in a way... like laughing in the face. "I know how to use the framework."
Cynicism.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Pathetic. That's Sky territory. Nibali becoming more unlikable by the day.

the truth hurts doesn't it

 

[Arnout]

Maybe in Sicily

Ah I forgot people from Milan consider everything south of Florence Africa

On what Nibali said. He says what he is obliged to say. Proves nothing in either direction.

 

[Benotti69]

Nibali talks about Astana being different. How?

Have they released Nibali's numbers to an independent credible sports scientist?

If they have not at the very least done that then they are no different, in fact they are the same as all the others.

 

[keeponrollin]

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

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

+1

an arrogant denial of pretty much all scientific knowledge gained in the last century

 

[Juan Speeder]

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.

I don't think cyclists generate wind.

 

[sir fly]

I don't think cyclists generate wind.

I'm sure they break the wind occasionally.

 

[del1962]

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.

The flaw in this argument with respect to climbing versus flat times is that on the flat the force of wind resistance is a much larger percentage of the overall forces than on climbs, where gravity kicks in, so if on the flat say wind resistance equals 60% of the force (this is just an example figure, I have no idea on the actual percentage), then aerodynamic changes will have a much bigger effect than on a climb where it will represent a much lower percentage of the total forces. The steeper the climb the the smaller the overall effect of wind resistance because it is a smaller percentage of the overall force.

However on the less steep part of a climb (and most climbs have them) then the effect of aerodynamics (and tailwinds) really comes into play, so if a km of the climb is at less than say 6%, you would expect aerodynamic gains


Separately, even on the flat the faster you ride the more you gain from aerodynamic advances aswell as the faster you are going the greater the force of wind resistance (assuming the same external wind speed).

That said, you would expect newer bikes which are both more aerodynamic and lighter to reduce climbing times given the same power output.

 

[SeriousSam]

There isnt really a flaw, and it's not counterintuitive why time gains (in seconds, ie absolute terms) due to a reduction in drag can be greater if you're slower.

Imagine the mood lightning in your team bus is really effective and relaxing. You can now ride at close to warp speed and cover 40 km in just a fraction of a second. Then you switch to a bike with better aerodynamics. You were already going at warp speed so aero drag ate up almost 100% of your power output. If the drag coefficient goes down, that frees up a lot of power previously devoted to overcoming drag. You can now ride a lot quicker and do the 40 km in an even tinier fraction of a second.

But in absolute terms, your time gain is tiny, just a fraction of a second!

 

[86TDFWinner]

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.

.

True to an extent. But also keep in mind, LeMond was an innoavator in the 80s, he and a select few riders, were already using elements of CF in their bikes(infact, some of his 86/89 TDF bikes were made of CF weren't they?)

If they're "significantly faster" today then back then, they should be w/o doping IMO. The current crop of riders, are simply resorting to doping to obtain many of the results of the clean riders back in the 80s. Just my opinion of course.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Nibali talks about Astana being different. How?

Have they released Nibali's numbers to an independent credible sports scientist?

If they have not at the very least done that then they are no different, in fact they are the same as all the others.

They're a member of MPCC. Froome, Contador and Quintana are on teams that are not.

 

[sniper]

They're a member of MPCC. Froome, Contador and Quintana are on teams that are not.

somebody please tell Walsh

on a side: how was Vino's Astana ever allowed to become a member of MPCC. Doesn't one of those two Cs stand for Credible?

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh, Holczer or whoever it was that set it up made sure credibility was to the fore.

 

[SafeBet]

Ah I forgot people from Milan consider everything south of Florence Africa

More seriously, I can walk for hours in Milano without finding a videostore so I gotta assume there are some differences between the two regions in that respect.

 

[Franklin]

+1

an arrogant denial of pretty much all scientific knowledge gained in the last century

Which is actually what you guys are doing.

Aerodynamics have more time gains at a lower speed over the same distance.
Aerodynamics have a (much!) bigger wattage gain at higher speeds.

It's the bolded that is important. Of course Air resistance is more important at higher speeds, but the time gain (which is not the % gain)is higher simply because the effort takes that much longer. Iow, you "enjoy" the benefit for a longer period. Same goes for weight.

The math here is universal and not schewed by manufacturers. I'm not saying a Cervelo beats a Scott, this is just fundamental.

Then to Benotti: denying Aerodynamics cost several people a GT win. Everyone has a different aero tuck, sways more or less on a bike, but the gains are undeniable.

Now why does this matter with climbing: The time gains by aerodynamics are substantial. At 20 kmh and a mild headwind boxed rims versus more aero is tens of seconds. Even if we go to the conservative ten seconds (deep section would be up to 30 seconds) it would push someone up and down the standings at Hautacam.

And that's just the wheels! Shirt open or closed is an even bigger difference (though heat is a tremendous issue!). This is another example why cycling is way to conservative. To look at a blight on our sport (Froome) and compare him with AC I have to admit that Froome wears a tighter jersey. And yes, considering the duration of a GT that will in the end make a difference in wattage spent (calories to eat!)over three weeks. And no, drafting in the peleton does not eliminate aerodynamical difference.

I'm not arguing that this means riders are clean, I simply say that speeds should be higher than in the eighties. And about Greg. Considering in 1989 he rode a TVT carbon fibre frame or a steel frame (he used both) with rather hefty Mavic components there's no doubt that not only is Nibs bike lighter, it's also a lot stiffer. And then Greg would ride Mavic SSC tubular with 32 spokes. We have faster wheels nowadays. => Also notice how much lower Greg was sitting compared to his compatriots. if anyone would agree here it would be Greg

It's not controversial to say bikes have improved. Does this mean I deny blood manipulation? Do I even imply technology is more important? Of course not.

 

[Hautacam]

Paul Kimmage sceptical about Nibali's performances.

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/paul-...urnalism-i-practice-1591253-Jul2014/#comments

“That’s a starting point, but you’ve also got to analyse the performances. What I find encouraging about this year’s race is if you look at the difference between the riders, you take the leader out of it and you’re talking about a handful of minutes separating the top 10.

“Some of them are going backwards yesterday and they’re going forward today. It’s a fantastic battle, so there isn’t that big a difference between the contenders in the race, other than Nibali, who just seems to be on a completely different level to everybody else. I would like to believe it’s possible for a rider to be that superior, but I have severe reservations, because anytime we’ve seen that in the past, it’s been because of doping.”

 

[9000ft]

True to an extent. But also keep in mind, LeMond was an innoavator in the 80s, he and a select few riders, were already using elements of CF in their bikes(infact, some of his 86/89 TDF bikes were made of CF weren't they?)

If they're "significantly faster" today then back then, they should be w/o doping IMO. The current crop of riders, are simply resorting to doping to obtain many of the results of the clean riders back in the 80s. Just my opinion of course.

"Clean riders of the 80"?