Speed

"Earl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Memo to OLN an or whomever provides the feed for us poor souls in the USA.
Can you display the speed now and then when they're going downhill?
I mean I know they always (Phil) go 100k!... but perhaps just a quick
flash now and again?

Coolest part about descending, I don't think they make a drug yet for
skill(?)
Botero 110k! with a gravitational suitcase of courage.

they always just make up some unbelievable number, make up your own, what's
the diff ?

Laz

Laz said:

"Earl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Memo to OLN an or whomever provides the feed for us poor souls in the USA.
Can you display the speed now and then when they're going downhill?
I mean I know they always (Phil) go 100k!... but perhaps just a quick
flash now and again?

Coolest part about descending, I don't think they make a drug yet for
skill(?)
Botero 110k! with a gravitational suitcase of courage.

they always just make up some unbelievable number, make up your own, what's
the diff ?

Laz

Best we get is a rare shot of a moto's speedometer. With the power those
pros have, 60 mph isn't out of the question. But they're usually in the
40-50 mph range, by my WAG.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Quoted message said:

Best we get is a rare shot of a moto's speedometer. With the power those
pros have, 60 mph isn't out of the question. But they're usually in the
40-50 mph range, by my WAG.

When I watched years ago, Phil would say on regular basis, 75 mph. But
I think he was having some conversion problem, maybe math wasn't his strong
point in school. I hope they've corrected that.

Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like
67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly
achieved speed on Alpine passes?

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like
67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly
achieved speed on Alpine passes?

terminal velocity.

Laz

Tom Kunich said:

Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like
67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly
achieved speed on Alpine passes?

There are one or two of those around here too, and 42 is perfectly
doable. There are also plenty of mountain passes and canyons, where
42/67 isn't hard either. But 55/88 is the best I've done. The pros can
probably top that, but only under the right conditions. On something
particularly steep and straight, I can believe 70.

That's top speed. The rest of the time is considerably lower.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Raptor said:

Laz said:

Earl wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Botero 110k! with a gravitational suitcase of courage.

they always just make up some unbelievable number,
make up your own, what's the diff ?

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Best we get is a rare shot of a moto's speedometer. With the power those
pros have, 60 mph isn't out of the question.

For 60mph sustained, power has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of
releasing stored energy from the climb and wind resistance (terminal
velocity).

The cadence for a 53x11 and 60 mph is 164. Power doesn't matter much
@164rpm, as far as sustained 60 mph goes.

Quoted message said:

But they're usually in the
40-50 mph range, by my WAG.

Yep. There are 60 mph descents, just very few and very far between.

We held 52 pretty easily coming down the back side of Bachelor at
Cascade last week. It's not too steep a grade there, and if I remember
on the Tourmalet there were a couple places where we really got moving
(no speedometer when I did that) - there are plenty of steeper pitches
so 60+ is certainly feasible.

Andrew F Martin said:

We held 52 pretty easily coming down the back side of Bachelor at
Cascade last week. It's not too steep a grade there, and if I remember
on the Tourmalet there were a couple places where we really got moving
(no speedometer when I did that) - there are plenty of steeper pitches
so 60+ is certainly feasible.

Pretty awesome - were you at the speed where you could sit up and
flare your chest and arms and find your descent slowing? If so
wouldn't that mean you were nearing terminal velocity in the tuck
position - maybe 10mph faster (62-ish). Just curious.

jj

I never went into a tuck as I was behind the front 'wall' of riders.
Mostly just riding in the drops, elbows bent. Terminal velocity is
certainly relative, since I was on a road bike without any "aero
advantages".

Laz says...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like
67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly
achieved speed on Alpine passes?

Quoted message said:

terminal velocity.

Strictly speaking, terminal velocity isn't the issue when you're talking 100kph.
Back about the time the Red Zinger became the Coors Classic, a few riders were
radared at over 70mph coming down from Vail Pass. I got a warning ticket near
Golden for going 65 in a 55 on my bicycle. 100kph is certainly believable. I
can't remember how fast the dude in South America went in his quest for the
fastest downhill speed on a bicycle, but I'm pretty sure it was well over
100kph.

Mad Dog said:

Laz says...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like
67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly
achieved speed on Alpine passes?

Quoted message said:

terminal velocity.

Strictly speaking, terminal velocity isn't the issue when you're talking 100kph.
Back about the time the Red Zinger became the Coors Classic, a few riders were
radared at over 70mph coming down from Vail Pass. I got a warning ticket near
Golden for going 65 in a 55 on my bicycle. 100kph is certainly believable. I
can't remember how fast the dude in South America went in his quest for the
fastest downhill speed on a bicycle, but I'm pretty sure it was well over
100kph.

Well, with a bike on snow it's 212 kph (132 mph) - not that this is
comparable, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:51:14 -0500, Earl <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Memo to OLN an or whomever provides the feed for us poor souls in the USA.
Can you display the speed now and then when they're going downhill?
I mean I know they always (Phil) go 100k!... but perhaps just a quick
flash now and again?

Coolest part about descending, I don't think they make a drug yet for
skill(?)
Botero 110k! with a gravitational suitcase of courage.

It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and
pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH.
I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I
guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?

NobodyMan said:

It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and
pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH.
I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I
guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?

He's saying 50 to 60 mph, not kph. He may be full of [censored], but I
don't
think there are any hills just outside Alexandria that compare to an
Alpine
descent. In fact, in a lot of places it must be hard to learn to
descend unless you make a trip to the mountains: there are plenty of
short steep hills in the DC area (more than I expected coming from
Norcal), but they're all over in 30-60 seconds and have a stop sign at
the bottom.

Ben
not a good descender

"Ernst Noch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mad Dog said:

Laz says...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote

Quoted message said:

>Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like
>67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly
>achieved speed on Alpine passes?

Quoted message said:

terminal velocity.

Strictly speaking, terminal velocity isn't the issue when you're talking
100kph.
Back about the time the Red Zinger became the Coors Classic, a few riders
were
radared at over 70mph coming down from Vail Pass. I got a warning ticket
near
Golden for going 65 in a 55 on my bicycle. 100kph is certainly
believable. I
can't remember how fast the dude in South America went in his quest for
the
fastest downhill speed on a bicycle, but I'm pretty sure it was well over
100kph.

Well, with a bike on snow it's 212 kph (132 mph) - not that this is
comparable, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Was that Bob Roll taking a jacket up the Stelvio to Andy Hampsten?

"Jet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andrew F Martin said:

We held 52 pretty easily coming down the back side of Bachelor at
Cascade last week. It's not too steep a grade there, and if I remember
on the Tourmalet there were a couple places where we really got moving
(no speedometer when I did that) - there are plenty of steeper pitches
so 60+ is certainly feasible.

Pretty awesome - were you at the speed where you could sit up and
flare your chest and arms and find your descent slowing? If so
wouldn't that mean you were nearing terminal velocity in the tuck
position - maybe 10mph faster (62-ish). Just curious.

That changes with the road surface and the inclination.

gwhite said:

Raptor said:

Best we get is a rare shot of a moto's speedometer. With the power those
pros have, 60 mph isn't out of the question.

For 60mph sustained, power has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of
releasing stored energy from the climb and wind resistance (terminal
velocity).

The cadence for a 53x11 and 60 mph is 164. Power doesn't matter much
@164rpm, as far as sustained 60 mph goes.

I'm thinking of sprinting or accelerating out of corners onto
straightaways that are much shorter due to the speed involved. With the
power, they're better at "releasing stored energy" than I am. Also,
they're more motivated. I don't run the risks much any more.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Quoted post said:

NobodyMan said:

It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and
pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH.
I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I
guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?

He's saying 50 to 60 mph, not kph. He may be full of [censored], but I
don't
think there are any hills just outside Alexandria that compare to an
Alpine
descent. In fact, in a lot of places it must be hard to learn to
descend unless you make a trip to the mountains: there are plenty of
short steep hills in the DC area (more than I expected coming from
Norcal), but they're all over in 30-60 seconds and have a stop sign at
the bottom.

I went 60 mph when I did the Ted Smith RR in Western NY (Erie Co.).
Those aren't mountains. It was the fastest I've gone on a bike and I've
rode over many big mountains. No "significant" turns and steepness is
what is required to hit 60 mph; Not a big mountain or a 53x11 gear.

email hidden said:

NobodyMan said:

It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and
pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH.
I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I
guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?

He's saying 50 to 60 mph, not kph. He may be full of [censored], but I
don't
think there are any hills just outside Alexandria that compare to an
Alpine
descent. In fact, in a lot of places it must be hard to learn to
descend unless you make a trip to the mountains: there are plenty of
short steep hills in the DC area (more than I expected coming from
Norcal), but they're all over in 30-60 seconds and have a stop sign at
the bottom.

No, him AND Sherwin were both distincly saying, over and over, the
speeds in KPH, NOT MPH.

You're right on hills here in Alexandria though. That's my point. I
can descend at the speeds they are trying to boast about, but I'm
soryy, descending on the straights they were showing at 50 to 60 KPH
(and, regardless of what you remember, they do give it in Kilomters,
not Miles, per hour) is not to be viewed in awe and wonder.