Windy Mountain

[Hugh Januss]

I'm sure your PM was the deciding factor

Seems we are drifting off topic again.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Oh, but it was a mod, so it's all A OK. Carry on.

 

[Beech Mtn]

With the numbers floating around about how much % of the climb had tailwind, headwind, etc - what is the percentage of the overall climb that is exposed where wind is a big factor, and what percentage is in the trees where wind is less important?

 

[Netserk]

I think it's the last 6.15km that are the most exposed.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think it's the last 6.15km that are the most exposed.

Where it was mostly cross to head wind.

 

[thehog]

Where it was mostly cross to head wind.

This is my favorite thread of all time.

The wind is very interesting.

Doesn’t appear to be conclusive evidence either way.

If only the riders would tell us what happened out there on the mountain.

Why won’t they speak about the wind?

However. It certainly wasn’t a tailwind. That’s for sure.

Several riders have mentioned the headwind in the final kilometers. But not the tailwind in the first 16km?

Why?

 

[Cycle Chic]

yeh why doesn't someone ask a few of the riders on twitter

 

[The Hitch]

yeh why doesn't someone ask a few of the riders on twitter

Yeah cos 20 years of Omerta has taught us that riders journos and commentators will always tell the truth when they get asked questions about whether there is doping in cycling

 

[thehog]

Yeah cos 20 years of Omerta has taught us that riders journos and commentators will always tell the truth when they get asked questions about whether there is doping in cycling

Exactly.











10c

 

[Von Mises]

It is far more unbelievable to see someone dominating both mountains and time trials than it is to see them just dominate mountains.
.

Coppi, Gaul, Merckx, Hinault, LeMond, Fignon and actually many more - they all won ITT-s and MTF-s.

The Champs Elysee stage one year had Hinault and Zoetelmelk finish minutes ahead of the rest.

Yet in recent years, even in the most doped tours like 2009 where everyone was doping apart from saint wiggins, its been a sprint where everyone finishes together.

Point is, You cant compare racing from recent years to racing from the 80's and back. Didn't Merckx once win a Pau stage by minutes whereas Hushovd finished with the pack in 2010.

I am well aware of problems comparing past results. But what is better option? Your own subjective (and quite frankly, not very well founded) judgement about climbing and TT abilities?

 

[Von Mises]

hate to break it to you, but RR didn't acknowledge the lack of wind in the forest that winterfold speaks of. RR claims a tailwind (tail-wind) in the forest part. And headwind only for the final 2 km. So no, RR has not acknowledged any of that.

and now an eyecheck.
just look at the trees here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOC4ahW9rP0
hardly any wind at all (regardless of the direction).
RR has claimed considerable tailwind.

I havent seen that RR has claimed considerable tailwind, but tailwind there was albeit weak.

Btw, even weak wind makes a difference. For instance 5 km/h wind is very weak. Beaufort scale defines it as "light air" and describes "leaves and flags do not move, smoke drifts", you practically do not feel this kind of wind on your skin.
(In video what you posted you can see drifting smoke for instance 30:37 or 31.37 minutes.)

But 5 km/h, though you cannot feel it and leaves do not move, makes considerable. difference. Assuming 400w constant output, all else equal,over 10 km distance 5 km/h tailwind wins you roughly 1 minute compared with 0 km/ h and 2 minutes compared with 5 km/h headwind.

Stronger wind, like 10 km/h - still weak actually (light breexe defined by Beaufort), but leaves move and flags start to move, makes obviously even more difference.

In video what you posted there are many-many different spots in trees where you can see flags moving in tailwind.

My point: there was tailwind in forest, weak, but still tailwind.

 

[sniper]

I havent seen that RR has claimed considerable tailwind, but tailwind there was albeit weak.

Btw, even weak wind makes a difference. For instance 5 km/h wind is very weak. Beaufort scale defines it as "light air" and describes "leaves and flags do not move, smoke drifts", you practically do not feel this kind of wind on your skin.
(In video what you posted you can see drifting smoke for instance 30:37 or 31.37 minutes.)

But 5 km/h, though you cannot feel it and leaves do not move, makes considerable. difference. Assuming 400w constant output, all else equal,over 10 km distance 5 km/h tailwind wins you roughly 1 minute compared with 0 km/ h and 2 minutes compared with 5 km/h headwind.

Stronger wind, like 10 km/h - still weak actually (light breexe defined by Beaufort), but leaves move and flags start to move, makes obviously even more difference.

In video what you posted there are many-many different spots in trees where you can see flags moving in tailwind.

My point: there was tailwind in forest, weak, but still tailwind.

fair points, but while i could see flags flying with tailwind, i also saw flags without any wind, and some with headwind, i think.
point being:
While i,d readily admit tailwind may have been predominant in the forest, i also think RR is (grossly) exaggerating with his "80 percent obvious tailwind", especially if we take the final 5 or 6 km into account, where some riders have reported (strong) headwind. And since the evidence really isn,t clearcut either way, one is still left wondering how RR could be so convinced of his case.

 

[Netserk]

I think the most telling thing so far is the SRM compared to CPL.

How does that make sense if there was more tailwind than headwind?

 

[The Hitch]

Coppi, Gaul, Merckx, Hinault, LeMond, Fignon and actually many more - they all won ITT-s and MTF-s.

Neither matched Armstrong's times up mountains. And i don't know how many of them ttd as fast as froome. Merckx on track. Lemond over 30k.

Your post totally misses the point, as most sky fan posts do.

The particular post you replied to was not making the case against froome but explaining to someone who considers performance a barometer for doping why froomes performance was significantly superior to quintanas.


Therefore reminding us that riders in the past were good in both tts and mountains is a bit of a non-sequiter

 

[sniper]

I havent seen that RR has claimed considerable tailwind, but tailwind there was albeit weak.
...
My point: there was tailwind in forest, weak, but still tailwind.

Drawing lines on a photo does not change the video. It is clear that for 15 km prior to Chalet Reynard to several km after there is a tailwind, or a crosswind sheltered by RV's. The last 3km or so has a head, side, and tailwind as it is much more expose. Even the lines you draw on your picture support this as the climb from Bedoin would have solid tailwind.

It is pretty clear that 16 km of the climb had a tailwind, 2 km had a head wind, and 3-4km had a crosswind

by the way, throughout this thread you'll find links to a rider (Ten Dam), reporters (two or three), and wheather forcasters speaking of (strong) headwinds on the ventoux.
again, not saying there wasn't a tailwind in the forest, just that RR's 80% claim and his conviction strike me as premature.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

fair points, but while i could see flags flying with tailwind, i also saw flags without any wind, and some with headwind, i think.
point being:
While i,d readily admit tailwind may have been predominant in the forest, i also think RR is (grossly) exaggerating with his "80 percent obvious tailwind", especially if we take the final 5 or 6 km into account, where some riders have reported (strong) headwind. And since the evidence really isn,t clearcut either way, one is still left wondering how RR could be so convinced of his case.

So, again - you don't appear to have an opinion on the wind, just on RRs estimation. There is a word for that.

Good to see that you are finally clearing up what you perceive the wind to be.
If (as you say) some unnamed riders (who? Where?) said they had a 5-6km a strong headwind how is RR "(grossly) exaggerating" by saying 80%?
And what is your estimation?

 

[sniper]

So, again - you don't appear to have an opinion on the wind, just on RRs estimation. There is a word for that.

As I think you know, the underlying issue is: can we reliably compare the 2013 edition of the Ventoux to earlier editions, i.e. was it a reliable yardstick for measuring Froome's performance vis-a-vis Armstrong's?

RR is convinced it wasn't.
I'm not flat out challenging him, but am doubting the 80%, and i do indeed wonder where RR's conviction comes from if we have so many conflicting info.

And with reports of (strong) headwinds in the final parts, I, for now, don't see why we shouldn't take Froome's time and poweroutput at face value, i.e. as mutant.

What's the word for that?

Good to see that you are finally clearing up what you perceive the wind to be. If (as you say) some unnamed riders (who? Where?) said they had a 5-6km a strong headwind how is RR "(grossly) exaggerating" by saying 80%?
And what is your estimation?

I said Ten Dam and I said relevant links have been provided in upthread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I think you know, the underlying issue is: can we reliably compare the 2013 edition of the Ventoux to earlier editions, i.e. was it a reliable yardstick for measuring Froome's performance vis-a-vis Armstrong's?

I asked specific questions, again you fudge.

As for the above, it goes back to The Hitchs earlier point about the wind on Ventoux being interesting.
IMO no, it is not a 'reliable yardstick' because there are too many variables with this mountain.

Even if we got everyone holding hands and agreeing the wind came from the left for exactly 68.426% of the climb, then you would have to do the exact same weather study on any comparison.

Which is why RR is correct in saying there are better comparisons.

RR is convinced it wasn't.
I'm not flat out challenging him, but am doubting the 80%, and i do indeed wonder where RR's conviction comes from if we have so many conflicting info.

And with reports of (strong) headwinds in the final parts, I, for now, don't see why we shouldn't take Froome's time and poweroutput at face value, i.e. as mutant.

What's the word for that?

Trolling is the word.

So, you now admit that your fixation with RR and the 80% is nothing to do with accuracy of the conditions but because it could damage your view on Froome?
Even though RR amongst others has stated he is sceptical/suspicious?

I said Ten Dam and I said relevant links have been provided in upthread.

I am not interested in what you 'say' - link it so I can read it myself.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Neither matched Armstrong's times up mountains. And i don't know how many of them ttd as fast as froome. Merckx on track. Lemond over 30k.

Your post totally misses the point, as most sky fan posts do.

Emphatically yes. Even if you wish to pick your data points to fashion some kind of similarity between pre-EPO and EPO and after riders, what's lost is the fact pre-EPO elites mostly raced at the sharp end of most every race. And there were many more and longer races!

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?

 

[thehog]

I think the most telling thing so far is the SRM compared to CPL.

How does that make sense if there was more tailwind than headwind?

Can you explain this? I'm a bit of amateur with this stuff.

Why does this data suggest not a tailwind?

 

[sniper]

Can you explain this? I'm a bit of amateur with this stuff.

Why does this data suggest not a tailwind?

yap, this interests me as well, and it's complicated, but as far as I can tell, Netserk seems right.

Here's my simplified take on it:
CPL (short fo CyclingPowerLab) measures "watts on the road", whilst SRM is the watts output from the rider himself.

I think if conditions are fully neutral, the roadwatts should equal the rider's watts.

Now, if the rider is producing more watts than road-watts, the rider apparently, for some reason (such as headwind) needed to produce extra power for the same number of road-watts.
In other words, if SRM exceeds roadwatts/CPL, this suggests headwind or somebody pulling you back with a cord or whatever type of friction making life difficult for the rider.

it makes sense, if you think about it, and perhaps somebody can complement my defective explanation.

here some previous posts on the matter:

Lets just assume your 3.36% is correct, you dont know the windconditions Irizar was riding in, but you assume it is due to tailwind. Well, you are bad in physics as well then. How does someone use more power than expected/guestimated in a tailwind situation? When riding with a tailwind one needs less power to produce a certain speed, that is what people learn in sixth grade.

I don't understand this statement. My interpretation of this tweet is that most of the models underestimated his power output. That would suggest a slight headwind.
I think you have it backwards, if the SRM is higher than CPL then there was a headwind that CPL didn't account for.

https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/360095234505445376

SRM: 324.1W

CPL: 313.2W

And your conclusion is that there was a tailwind?

 

[Ferminal]

Careful, the relationship for someone falling back through the field from a breakaway might not necessarily hold for those attacking out of the bunch who were 20% better. Not to mention the error that is already inherent in estimations. So it's not exactly proof that there was no assistance from behind, but it is definitely not proof that there was, which is what some posts earlier tried to suggest.

Edit: At least this is my position (which is why I'm a bit sceptical about taking SRM data from a backmarker and translating it an inference about the head of the field), but it might look a bit silly if you've been saying it proves a tailwind and then say "it can't be used as proof of anything".

 

[Netserk]

Careful, the relationship for someone falling back through the field from a breakaway might not necessarily hold for those attacking out of the bunch who were 20% better. Not to mention the error that is already inherent in estimations. So it's not exactly proof that there was no assistance from behind, but it is definitely not proof that there was, which is what some posts earlier tried to suggest.

Edit: At least this is my position, no doubt people will only embrace it if it supports their view though.

This. It would be very helpful to have several SRMs, or some from the riders who did very well on the climb.

You'd think that a rider like Froome had more wind on his nose than Irizar, and I also think that Irizar held a more steady pace, but I'm not certain about that.

 

[Von Mises]

Neither matched Armstrong's times up mountains. And i don't know how many of them ttd as fast as froome. Merckx on track. Lemond over 30k.

Your post totally misses the point, as most sky fan posts do.

The particular post you replied to was not making the case against froome but explaining to someone who considers performance a barometer for doping why froomes performance was significantly superior to quintanas.


Therefore reminding us that riders in the past were good in both tts and mountains is a bit of a non-sequiter

I am not sky fanboy. You make a classic mistake assuming that if I criticize or support some argument, then I have to be on this or that side. For instance, yesterday in another thread karlboss evaluated GC riders and placed Contador below Porte, Wiggins and on same level with Valverde, Kreuziger etc. I thought that he was wrong, that Contador should be rated higher and so replied. But it does not mean that I am Contador´s fanboy, it just means that in my opinion GC riders rank is different. Same is in this thread, if I say smth about wind conditions on Ventoux, it does not mean that I am Froome´s or Sky´s fanboy.

Secondly, topic of this thread is wind conditions on Ventoux and one of the side arguments developed sounded like this "considering Froome´s winning margin, it seems that only he had tailwind and all others headwind." In this context I brought up historical Ventoux times and showed that actually Froome´s winning margin is not exceptional. 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. In fact it seems to me that some people get frustrated because evidence is inconclusive and we cannot make strong conclusions from Ventoux, so they start invent side topics (like Quintana´s abilty to TT) or quoting DirtyWorks who supported "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?" - this will drift even further away from initial topic (wind conditions).

So, no I do not miss the point, I think that you miss the point (Wind on Ventoux) or invent new points.

 

[Von Mises]

fair points, but while i could see flags flying with tailwind, i also saw flags without any wind, and some with headwind, i think.
point being:
While i,d readily admit tailwind may have been predominant in the forest, i also think RR is (grossly) exaggerating with his "80 percent obvious tailwind", especially if we take the final 5 or 6 km into account, where some riders have reported (strong) headwind. And since the evidence really isn,t clearcut either way, one is still left wondering how RR could be so convinced of his case.

If we are talking about these 10 kilometers in forest, I saw tens of flags showing tail wind. Yes, I also saw many flags without wind, I think I saw 2 flags showing crosswind, but I did not notice flags with headwind. So, please show me where are flags with headwind?

And who are some riders who have reported strong tailwind for final 5 or 6 km?

Maybe RR is exaggerating, but not grossly.