• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Who are the best in 300 meters punchy-sprint?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Netserk said:
Cav lost more than 10'' to Degenkolb on 300m @ less than 9% (was beaten by Zaugg amongst others as well), yet Kittel who is far worse climber/punchy sprinter than Cav will be able to beat Purito on a 300m 15% climb. Lol.

Well I've shown you the figures of why Kittel would beat Rodriguez, all else being equal. I think that is more informative than an anecdote from one race.

Sprinters are always underestimated in these kind of scenarios, but they are the ones who train with the most focus on developing their power over short durations so it makes sense they would go more quickly.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
Cav lost more than 10'' to Degenkolb on 300m @ less than 9% (was beaten by Zaugg amongst others as well), yet Kittel who is far worse climber/punchy sprinter than Cav will be able to beat Purito on a 300m 15% climb. Lol.
It was a rolling stage so I'd wonder hos Cav would fair on a completely flat day with a short uphill finale. Something like the stage Matthews won in Paris Nice.
 
Re: Re:

lemon cheese cake said:
Netserk said:
Cav lost more than 10'' to Degenkolb on 300m @ less than 9% (was beaten by Zaugg amongst others as well), yet Kittel who is far worse climber/punchy sprinter than Cav will be able to beat Purito on a 300m 15% climb. Lol.
It was a rolling stage so I'd wonder hos Cav would fair on a completely flat day with a short uphill finale. Something like the stage Matthews won in Paris Nice.

Another thing to consider Cav is that one of his big advantages in a sprint is his low frontal area. That advantage is worth much less at slower speeds.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
You used made up numbers to prove your point. I could do the same to reach a different conclusion, but that would still be meaningless.

Even if Rodriguez had the highest w/kg at one minute that has ever been known - 11.5 according to the Coggan chart - he would only average 22.4km/h on a 15% climb, Kittel would only need 10.9 w/kg to beat him (a value that would put him somehwere in the middle of the pro peloton).

Rodriguez obviously doesn't have the highest ever w/kg for one minute, and Kittel is most likely well above average in that regard. So, there is quite a big margin of error in stating that Kittel would be faster.

A climb that takes less than a minute is just not long enough for a lighter climber, raw power is still too important at those durations.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.

I think the "sprinters finish" thing might have been a reference to Tirreno this year.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
I would not call last Sunday a sprint between GVA and Sagan. Sagan was Fu%%ed. GVA Still had some legs,
How can you base results on beating a knackered rider. I mean, me and whoever could beat Cav if he's legs have gone "he's fu%%ed". It surly has to be a fair playing field to make comparisons.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.

How convenient. Your numbers will then always be immune to scrutiny because things will never be equal. People can bring up examples and you can just say it doesn't matter cause not everything was/is equal.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.

How convenient. Your numbers will then always be immune to scrutiny because things will never be equal.

Well the original question was assuming all things being equal. If all things aren't equal - if one rider has had a harder race, has been in a break, struggled up a climb or whatever, then of course that would be a factor.

The only point I'm trying to make is that on a short climb of less than a minute, that begins at a high speed, sprinters have the advantage over climbers, as raw power is more important than w/kg. A light rider like Rodriguez just can't produce the absolute power needed to conest.

In race conditions you would also back the sprinter in general, because they are the ones that train specifically to be able to put out short duration high power at the end of hard races.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.

You're basing everything on output calculations. do it for Sagan and GVA and tell us who will win. Then explain the result on Sunday. You challenged my point that this discussion is pointless because it's never applicable.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.

You're basing everything on output calculations. do it for Sagan and GVA and tell us who will win. Then explain the result on Sunday. You challenged my point that this discussion is pointless because it's never applicable.

It's not applicable in this circumstance, a circumstance when two fast finishers had just ridden a 12km pursuit probably well above threshold at the end of a long race - that doesn't mean it's never applicable. :rolleyes:

For example, it was a lot more applicable in the stage Degenkolb won in Dubai after a pretty easy race when everyone arrived quite fresh.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
It's not applicable in this circumstance, a circumstance when two fast finishers had just ridden a 12km pursuit probably well above threshold at the end of a long race - that doesn't mean it's never applicable. :rolleyes:

For example, it was a lot more applicable in the stage Degenkolb won in Dubai after a pretty easy race when everyone arrived quite fresh.

Ah right, so it's applicable only in the races you specify because they happen to match what you think. Gotcha. Bye.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Jspear said:
[quote="King Boonen":368r5tyj][quote="DFA123 said:
King Boonen said:
All else being equal, happened in no bike race ever.

Best sprinters always win, even when knackered, do they? Remind me what order GVA and Sagan finished in this weekend?

Well that's a massive straw man. I never said the best sprinter would win just that sprinters would easily beat climbers on a very short effort like that. Of course fatigue is a factor, but a 30 second effort just isn't long enough for riders like Martin and Rodriguez from a fast start.

So why did GVA beat Sagan on a sprinters finish? According you you sprinters should always win and there can be no argument that Sagan is a much better flat finish sprinter compared to GVA, GVA wouldn't even be considered a sprinter compared to Sagan.

I have never said that. All I have said is that a sprinter would beat a climber on anything less than one minute after a theoretical race where all things were equal.

Is GVA a climber? No. Is RVV a race where all things are equal? No.

How convenient. Your numbers will then always be immune to scrutiny because things will never be equal.[/quote]

Well the original question was assuming all things being equal. If all things aren't equal - if one rider has had a harder race, has been in a break, struggled up a climb or whatever, then of course that would be a factor.

The only point I'm trying to make is that on a short climb of less than a minute, that begins at a high speed, sprinters have the advantage over climbers, as raw power is more important than w/kg. A light rider like Rodriguez just can't produce the absolute power needed to conest.

In race conditions you would also back the sprinter in general, because they are the ones that train specifically to be able to put out short duration high power at the end of hard races.[/quote]




Fair enough.
The bold: I would never back Kittle over say Valverde in a 300 meter finish with anything beyond 9% gradients. I don't care what "science" says; I've seen to many real life examples that just prove it doesn't work that way.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
Where do you think Kittel would've ended in that stage, if you had to guess? In front of Cav? In front of Valverde?

Difficult to say, the relatively slow approach speed would have worked against him - 86kg is a lot of mass to accelerate - and the drag up to it made it slightly more of an aerobic climb than if starting from the flat at 50km/h.

If I had to guess, I'd say definitely behind Valverde, may be sightly ahead of Cav.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
[quote="DFA123"



Fair enough.
The bold: I would never back Kittle over say Valverde in a 300 meter finish with anything beyond 9% gradients. I don't care what "science" says; I've seen to many real life examples that just prove it doesn't work that way.

I agree 100% with that, Valverde would win nearly every time. I would say though that Valverde isn't really a normal climber, he must have an insane power profile. Kittel was a extreme example - because he's often lampooned on here as doing nothing but being able to win a dead flat sprint - but I think he would do a lot better than people give him credit for in that kind of situation.

The real favourites would be guys like Degenkolb, Gerrans, Matthews, Sagan and possible Valverde, Kwiat on anything around 10%+.
 
Re:

del1962 said:
So many different factors involved like speed into the climb and wind direction but what speed would they be able to put out on a 15% climb at maximum anaerobic effort, after the initial slow down and assuming no tailwind.

Kittel - at 86kg and with an estimated 1 min power of around 11w/kg would average 946 watts. Which equates to 22.4km/h at 15%.

Rodriguez - at 58kg an with an esitmated 1 min power also of around 11w/kg would average 638 watts. That equates to 21.6km/h at 15%.

Degenkolb - at 79kg, with probably a slightly higher 1 min power - let's say 11.4 w/kg - would average 900 watts. That equates to 23.1km/h.

Valverde - at roughly 62kg, probably has w/kg of around 11.5 for one minute (about as high as it gets). He would average 710 watts - which would be about 22.6km/h.

That's all with no wind and with a bike weighing 7kg.

These figures pretty much support what we saw in that Dubai stage. Degenkolb storming to victory on raw power; Valverde putting in a decent performance, and Rodriguez further back.
 

TRENDING THREADS