Windy Mountain

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Von Mises said:
And who are some riders who have reported strong tailwind for final 5 or 6 km?
i didn't say that. read my post again.

two riders who have reported headwinds in the final kms: martin and ten dam.
neither of them specify unambiguously where the headwind started or ended. see discussion upthread.
then there were several reporters (at least two or three) who spoke of strong headwind in the final segments. again, see links upthread.
then there were the weather forecasts, all predicting headwind on the ventoux on the day of the stage, and one forecast actually measuring headwind on the ventoux at around 17:00 pm (again, all is linked upthread). of course, this doesn't say much either way, but as i said dozens of times already, it does make RR's insistance on the 80% tailwind look odd.

EDIT: also, note that RR initially built his claim on Henderson's tweet. But Henderson is clearly lying or joking in that tweet ("tailwind on the whole climb"), even to RR's standards of 80% tailwind. Then RR built a claim on SRM data, but recent discussion in this thread suggests that that is not accurate either. So the only thing left for RR seems to be those few flags either hanging dead as a dodo in the forest or occasionally showing vague signs of weak tail/crosswind in the forest, which doesn't represent 80% of the climb anyway.
Not a strong case, yet RR is convinced.
 
sniper said:
i didn't say that. read my post again.

two riders who have reported headwinds in the final kms: martin and ten dam.
neither of them specify unambiguously where the headwind started or ended. see discussion upthread.
then there were several reporters (at least two or three) who spoke of strong headwind in the final segments. again, see links upthread.
then there were the weather forecasts, all predicting headwind on the ventoux on the day of the stage, and one forecast actually measuring headwind on the ventoux at around 17:00 pm (again, all is linked upthread). of course, this doesn't say much either way, but as i said dozens of times already, it does make RR's insistance on the 80% tailwind look odd.

EDIT: also, note that RR initially built his claim on Henderson's tweet. But Henderson is clearly lying or joking in that tweet ("tailwind on the whole climb"), even to RR's standards of 80% tailwind. Then RR built a claim on SRM data, but recent discussion in this thread suggests that that is not accurate either. So the only thing left for RR seems to be those few flags either hanging dead as a dodo in the forest or occasionally showing vague signs of weak tail/crosswind in the forest, which doesn't represent 80% of the climb anyway.
Not a strong case, yet RR is convinced.
I have on good authority that the Henderson tweet was a joke.

What he meant was that he farting the whole way up Ventoux'
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Since the advent of EPO the dopers destroy a field, then disappear into the middle of the field or worse for long periods of time with excuses at the ready. Does that sound like anyone that podiumed the TdF recently?
Didn't Wiggo get a lot of doping accusations last year because he performed at a high level throughout the season in many races?

The only safe strategy as a pro cyclist is to be cr*p so no-one cares.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
Didn't Wiggo get a lot of doping accusations last year because he performed at a high level throughout the season in many races?

The only safe strategy as a pro cyclist imis to be cr*p so no-one cares.
Last year was special for Sir Wiggo what with the flat ITT laden TdF with the Olympics and all, and Bertie on the way back from his ban. And "high level" doesn't do his year justice .now, does it. Annus mirabilis more like

This year? Annual horribilis well and truly out of the spotlight
 
Nov 22, 2012
2
0
0
Favourable winds Yes and no

hrotha said:
For what it's worth, I remember hearing and saying during the stage itself that there had been a tailwind for most of the climb, or at least a wind pattern that was more favourable than usual on Mont Ventoux.
Having done the climb that same morning I can confirm that for Ventoux standards, the wind was more favourable than ussual. The first 14K wind was not important, certainly no headwind and as ussual a short thrust of tailwind at the Chalet Reynard comb allowed me to use the big ring (52 in my case) till the next bend. In all the 50+ times I trained on the Ventoux you will never have 100% tailwind on the last stretch till the top. Trailwind prevailed though with only headwind on the last two stretches to the top. It took me 1H21 to do the climb in training mode which is relatively fast for me so winds were definitely favourable during that day. Over the years I have learned not to compare timings on the Ventoux because circumstances are too different as a rule.
 
sittingbison said:
Last year was special for Sir Wiggo what with the flat ITT laden TdF with the Olympics and all, and Bertie on the way back from his ban. And "high level" doesn't do his year justice .now, does it. Annus mirabilis more like

This year? Annual horribilis well and truly out of the spotlight
Is that not more down to the competition last year though? It was pretty much a joke in any important race Wiggins rode.

My opinion of Wiggins is that he's a great cyclist who achieved something that was probably above him by chance of circumstances. A course in the TDF tailor-made for a guy like him, his biggest rival in the ITT getting seriously injured early in the season and arguably the strongest team we have seen in decades at the tour (although again I think they looked so good due to the competition).


Do people have similar doubts about Phil Gilbert?
 
King Boonen said:
Is that not more down to the competition last year though? It was pretty much a joke in any important race Wiggins rode.

My opinion of Wiggins is that he's a great cyclist who achieved something that was probably above him by chance of circumstances. A course in the TDF tailor-made for a guy like him, his biggest rival in the ITT getting seriously injured early in the season and arguably the strongest team we have seen in decades at the tour (although again I think they looked so good due to the competition).


Do people have similar doubts about Phil Gilbert?
Perhaps for another thread.
 
King Boonen said:
Very strange. You allow a discussion about Wiggins but then when Gilbert is brought up you suggest it is moved to another thread?
No. I allow a little side comment, but not a new discussion that is completely off topic.

It's not only Gilbert that belongs to another thread...
 
Yup Phil Gil has blown hot and cold whilst at BMC...mostly cold other than a World Championship.

However both Phil and Sir Wiggo is veering off topic, so as you said let's leave it at that...which is what I meant to add prior but got distracted oops sorry :(

So let's get back to wind direction on Mont Venteux 2013
 
sniper said:
So the only thing left for RR seems to be those few flags either hanging dead as a dodo in the forest or occasionally showing vague signs of weak tail/crosswind in the forest, which doesn't represent 80% of the climb anyway.
Not a strong case, yet RR is convinced.

Well, RR´s 80% is definitely closer to the truth than your initial "head/crosswind" claim.
Btw, I do see that you are in retreat. Initially you described wind as cross/headwind. Later you started to admit that there was some tailwind in forest, though you added "and some with headwind, i think". In your last post dont mention headwind anymore, does it mean that you checked video and were not able to find headwind?

Again, maybe RR exaggerated. My own estimate (and I am talking only about last 16km) is 70-75% tailwind (mostly in forest and relatively weak). Of course I am talking only about my own impression, wind is hard to measure, it is not constant and changes.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Von Mises said:
...wind is hard to measure, it is not constant and changes.
Unless you have a weather station with the proper meteorological equipment. Then it's dead simple. Such weather stations surrounding Ventoux (i.e., Malaucene, Bedoin, Sault) all reported N-NW winds at 20 km/hr at the time of the race.

Effects of the mountain slopes would have - at best - put the winds coming from the west. Look at a map and you will see that this makes a tailwind coming into Bedoin, a cross-wind in the forest, and a headwind past Chalet Reynaud.

This is actual data from real, live instruments. No eyeballing it from a video. Not sure why there's any debate.

John Swanson
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
Effects of the mountain slopes would have - at best - put the winds coming from the west.
Take a look at the map.



A West Wind would mean the first 15.5km of 21km would have been a tailwind. The last 5km would be largely crosswind, with some tail and some headwind. Funny that most here agree that the last 5km had a cross wind..... but ignore that a crosswind on top would mean a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb

So about 16km of 21km would be a tailwind.

of course this post will result in the same circular arguments that have been repeated over and over
 
Von Mises said:
" In this context I brought up historical Ventoux times and showed that actually Froome´s winning margin is not exceptional.
Which as I explianed and you have refused to give a rebuttal too, suggesting you have no counter argument, is meaningless because racing used to be a lot different. Half the winning margins up Mont Ventoux came during eras when it was not uncommon for riders to smash minutes into their opponents. These days that sort of time loss is considered a bonk.

These days if the top 10 are seperated by a minute on a mountain stage its considered a major gc shakeup.

Of course, overall during three weeks he was clearly superior to Quintana and others and yes we can debate performance as barometer and so on, but these things tell nothing about wind conditions on Ventoux.
No they don't. They don't tell us nothing about the price of tea in china either. And?

I was quite clearly discussing the superiority of Froome to Quintana in that post. Your response treated it as an individual discussion of Froome as you have me a list of other riders who dominated tts and mountains.

This shows you either misunderstood my post or were trying to force in a defense of Froome when there wasn't really an opening to do so.

So, no I do not miss the point, I think that you miss the point (Wind on Ventoux) or invent new points.
It was you who responded to my post so its up to you to understand me if you choose to quote me not the other way round.

The discussion went like this. RR said Quintana was only 30s behind Froome.
I responded that that the overall gulf in ability is greater than 30s because climbing is 100% of Quintanas ability whereas in Froome's case its only part of his ability since he is a tting god too.
You reply that other gt riders have been good tters and climbers.

Thereby totally missing the point of the comparison between Froome's and Quintana's ascents up Ventoux.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Von Mises said:
Well, RR´s 80% is definitely closer to the truth than your initial "head/crosswind" claim.
Btw, I do see that you are in retreat. Initially you described wind as cross/headwind. Later you started to admit that there was some tailwind in forest, though you added "and some with headwind, i think". In your last post dont mention headwind anymore, does it mean that you checked video and were not able to find headwind?

Again, maybe RR exaggerated. My own estimate (and I am talking only about last 16km) is 70-75% tailwind (mostly in forest and relatively weak). Of course I am talking only about my own impression, wind is hard to measure, it is not constant and changes.
no need to start trolling von mise.

are you denying there was headwind? of course not.
was i ever denying a tailwind? of course not.

i never made any claims in the first place, other than that I think the 80% was exaggerated. dr. maserati asked me to give a counter estimate, i explicitly refused because i don't know and am willing to let myself be informed by people in the know. Only thing I knew from the start is that there had been a headwind in the final kms, as testified to by Ten Dam in reference to the final 5 km, which logically meant the 80% appeared an exaggeration.
And glad to see you agree that the 80% was exaggerated. I didn't say much else.
And where I said "(grossly) exaggerated", I was talking about the "solid tailwind" claim, which you'll agree was "(grossly) exaggerated."
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Race Radio said:
Take a look at the map.



A West Wind would mean the first 15.5km of 21km would have been a tailwind. The last 5km would be largely crosswind, with some tail and some headwind. Funny that most here agree that the last 5km had a cross wind..... but ignore that a crosswind on top would mean a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb

So about 16km of 21km would be a tailwind.

of course this post will result in the same circular arguments that have been repeated over and over
Would Froome lie about headwind?

Le coureur britannique dit avoir été passablement choqué par les images. « Cela reste franchement totalement surréaliste », a-t-il commenté sur la séquence où il accélère et lâche Alberto Contador « C’est quand même très très étonnant, je ne me lève même pas de la selle lors de l’accélération », a-t-il raconté en présentant des extraits vidéo aux journalistes pour souligner sa démonstration. « J’avais un fort vent de face et de côté, c’est quand même peu probable que j’arrive à lâcher tout le peloton de la sorte, tout en m’arrêtant par moment pour signer des autographes sur le bord de la route », souligne-t-il.
"strong head- and cross winds", while he accellerated away from Contador,
i.e. at 7 km from the finish.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Race Radio said:
...
A West Wind would mean the first 15.5km of 21km would have been a tailwind. The last 5km would be largely crosswind, with some tail and some headwind. Funny that most here agree that the last 5km had a cross wind..... but ignore that a crosswind on top would mean a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb
as argued by some, the forest kept the wind from having a huge effect, regardless of which way it blew, then as soon as they come out of the forest, according to Ten Dam, they largely face a headwind.
And aren't we too focused on the forest part of the climb anyway?
Froome went mutant on the final stretch, beating Armstrong and Pantani times with the wind blowing predominantly in his face.
Dumoulin didn't like what he saw:
Samuel DUMOULIN ‏@SamuelDumoulin 15 Jul
@ammattipyoraily 2000 | Marco Pantani: 18 min 11 sec 2013 | Chris Froome: 17 min 41 sec Inexploitable,vent de face très fort#infodemerde
 
sniper said:
as argued by some, the forest kept the wind from having a huge effect, regardless of which way it blew, then as soon as they come out of the forest, according to Ten Dam, they largely face a headwind.
And aren't we too focused on the forest part of the climb anyway?
Froome went mutant on the final stretch, beating Armstrong and Pantani times with the wind blowing predominantly in his face.
Dumoulin didn't like what he saw:
Interesting to note that Mayo had a side/tailwind in the final kilometres. Froome after 220km and a headwind in the last 6km was only 5% of his ITT record time! Yowzaa!

Armstrong had a side/tailwind in 2002 which if I make my own deductions is the same as Froome's conditions. With the fact Froome had a headwind in the last 6km and still was just 2 seconds off Armstrong's time.

Mutant alright!


The absolute record up Ventoux of 45:47 was set in an individual time trial at the 2004 Dauphine Libere' by Euskaltel's Iban Mayo. That day was hot and sunny, with a lighter than usual wind that gave the Spanish climber a side-tailwind up the exposed final 6.15km. The late Marco Pantani holds the Tour de France record of 46:00, set in 1994 on Stage 15 from Montpellier to Carpentras that scaled Ventoux on a sunny, calm day and finished on the north side Carpentras. Pantani audaciously attacked Maillot Jaune Indurain just after St.Esteve, taking 1'30" out of Indurain by the summit, but the Spaniard took many risks to pull Pantani back in the finale.

Chris Froome's time up Ventoux was 48'35", just 2" slower than Lance Armstrong's record time of 48'33" in 2002 on a stage won by Richard Virenque after a long solo break. Armstrong finished 3rd on the stage, 2'20" behind Virenque and put massive time to the rest of the top 10 that day, with hot conditions and a side-tailwind. The next three fastest times are from 2009; Stage 20 from Montélimar to Mont Ventoux. Andy Schleck and Alberto Contado posted 48'57, with Armstrong just behind in 49':00" and run with a 40km / hr. headwind. In 2000, Marco Pantani edged Lance Armstrong for the stage win atop Ventoux, with both riders finishing in 49':01", run in hot conditions with a strong headwind.
http://www.roadbikeaction.com/Related-Stories/content/313/7160/Racy-Language-The-Sky-Is-Not-Falling.html
 
sniper said:
as argued by some, the forest kept the wind from having a huge effect, regardless of which way it blew, then as soon as they come out of the forest, according to Ten Dam, they largely face a headwind.
And aren't we too focused on the forest part of the climb anyway?
Froome went mutant on the final stretch, beating Armstrong and Pantani times with the wind blowing predominantly in his face.
Dumoulin didn't like what he saw:
I think you have outlined the fact and the crux of the issue quite nicely. The rest is IMO just noise around the real reason why this is a debate.

If you argue that there was a tailwind in the forested, protected lower slopes, you have to concede it was a headwind in the exposed, barren upper slopes. You have to concede that the riders were in a group on the lower part. You have to concede that whatever wind there on the lower slopes was minimized by the trees, the group and the racing.

Given all that, what exactly is the point? That you can't use Ventoux as an indicator of Froome's doping or not? That is utterly subjective even if all are in agreement of the above facts.

The fact is he went insane on the upper slopes and dropped the entire peloton seated, in a kind of attack that this watcher of 38 years of cycling both here and in Europe has never seen. So what if the total climb may have been slightly influenced by a favorable breeze on the lower slopes? It was still an insane overall time and a completely insane attack.

Anyone with eyes can see it for what it was. No discussion of the tailwind in the forest or lack thereof can change that, so really what's the point?

Clearly on the mountain the prevailing wind was WNW. I've watched the tape several times and correlated road direction with wind direction. That jives perfectly with a prevailing N/NW wind after it hits the Ventoux massif and starts to wrap around the mountain.

So there was a slight tail/cross in the forest which was largely blocked by the trees. And there was a decent head/ cross in the exposed part. What is the point? Who cares if it was 80% or 75%? The wind didn't matter much in the forest and it mattered some on top. The ride was still ridiculous.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
red_flanders said:
I think you have outlined the fact and the crux of the issue quite nicely. The rest is IMO just noise around the real reason why this is a debate.

If you argue that there was a tailwind in the forested, protected lower slopes, you have to concede it was a headwind in the exposed, barren upper slopes. You have to concede that the riders were in a group on the lower part. You have to concede that whatever wind there on the lower slopes was minimized by the trees, the group and the racing.

Given all that, what exactly is the point? That you can't use Ventoux as an indicator of Froome's doping or not? That is utterly subjective even if all are in agreement of the above facts.

The fact is he went insane on the upper slopes and dropped the entire peloton seated, in a kind of attack that this watcher of 38 years of cycling both here and in Europe has never seen. So what if the total climb may have been slightly influenced by a favorable breeze on the lower slopes? It was still an insane overall time and a completely insane attack.

Anyone with eyes can see it for what it was. No discussion of the tailwind in the forest or lack thereof can change that, so really what's the point?

Clearly on the mountain the prevailing wind was WNW. I've watched the tape several times and correlated road direction with wind direction. That jives perfectly with a prevailing N/NW wind after it hits the Ventoux massif and starts to wrap around the mountain.

So there was a slight tail/cross in the forest which was largely blocked by the trees. And there was a decent head/ cross in the exposed part. What is the point? Who cares if it was 80% or 75%? The wind didn't matter much in the forest and it mattered some on top. The ride was still ridiculous.
A few points

the first 16km km of the 21km climb, the part that had a clear tailwind, is not all forested.

Tailwind in the first 16km equals mostly crosswind in the last 5km. Both the maps and the video support this

Froome's attack was questionable. It is possible to hold this view and still see that the vast majority of the climb was a tailwind.

It is odd the evidence overwhelmingly supports a tailwind for the vast majority of the climb but if you point out this obvious fact you are trolled, insulted, called a liar, and a shill for Sky......
 
Race Radio said:
A few points

the first 16km km of the climb, the part that had a clear tailwind, is not all forested.
The vast majority is, and the steep parts are.

Tailwind in the first 16km equals mostly crosswind in the last 5km. Both the maps and the video support this
What does "mostly crosswind" mean? That it was rarely a direct headwind? That it was mostly coming from slightly to the side? If so, correct. Also, it is clear that the "tailwind" on the lower slopes was not a direct tailwind, but a cross/tailwind.

If you are trying to say it wasn't a headwind for most of the exposed part given the movement of the riders, you are simply incorrect. The video absolutely does not support "mostly crosswind" in my definition of it. The prevailing wind was from a few degrees off direct headwind for the "as the crow flies" view of the top portion. However, the road has significant changes of direction and that is a big variable. The point is, that it was mostly a headwind and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise in face of the facts of the video.

Froome's attack was questionable. It is possible to hold this view and still see that the vast majority of the climb was a tailwind.
Again, what is the point of arguing the tailwind in the forested part of the climb where almost no one was riding out of the group? That's the question that matters and one that seems to be very difficult to get an answer on.

It's really not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS