3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!

"Isidor Gunsberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Having a 3rd (and Final) Individual Time Trial on the penultimate day of the race really helps to
insure that the eventual GC winner will have to rely on his own strength.

The TdF ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.

How about Puy de Dome on Friday before Paris? All the best Dan Gregory

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

Quoted message said:

I think that the organizers did a good job designing the route to keep the race interesting until
the final day. Having a 3rd (and Final) Individual Time Trial on the penultimate day of the race
really helps to insure that the eventual GC winner will have to rely on his own strength. Having
the ITT consist simply, and solely, of a Category 1 climb (Maximum Grade: 17 %) up Alto de
Abantos. This should be very interesting. The TdF ought to try having an ITT that features a
Summit finish.

It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills

The right stage for Tom Danielson, if he ever gets that far.

-Sonarrat.

"Isidor Gunsberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

The TdF

Quoted message said:

ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.

It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills

They do quite often. It is usually the second of the 3 ITTs in the Tour that is a mountain TT (when
they use such a course).

In 2001: stage 11 won by Armstrong, described as a "mountain TT" it rose 1521 meters in 32 km.

In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50 km, but finished with a climb.
I could not find the course.

In 1996, the first ITT stage 8 to Val d'Isere was a mountain TT, won by Berzin.

In 1989, the second ITT was stage 15 Gap - Orcieres-Merlette, won by Steven Rooks

I must have forgotten a few, but you can see they do several each decade. Oh yeah, one of the best
was the 1987 ITT won by Jean-Francois Bernard. It was stage 18 (it seemed earlier and there were 24
or 25 stages that year!) and it was up Mt. Ventoux! He dominated that TT and everyone thought he was
the heir to the Tour (since he raced in to the yellow jersey, and his team had won the 2 prior Tours
with Hinault and Lemond, AND was thought to be "the next Hinault"😉.

In conclusion, I totally agree with you. Perhaps you think they last ITT should be in the mountains,
but that is a problem unless they either have a transfer between the ITT and the stage in Paris, or
they relocate the last stage in to Paris (no way!)

Nick Burns said:

In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50 km, but finished with a
climb. I could not find the course.

The climb was from the start. In that stage Ullrich switched the bike at the top of the climb, to
his heavy TT bike (the type that Riis used in some bike throwing experiment). For a stage profile,
see letour.frEtape12.swfOpen ↗

Dieter

Having the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ITT consist simply, and solely, of a Category 1 climb (Maximum Grade: 17 %) up Alto de Abantos.

notice too it's only 12km long, but boy oh boy will it hurt.

Nick Burns said:

"Isidor Gunsberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

The TdF

Quoted message said:

ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.

It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills

They do quite often. It is usually the second of the 3 ITTs in the Tour that is a mountain TT
(when they use such a course).

In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass. In the flat limit, speed is roughly
dependent on power/(mass^0.75).

This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves .5 for width * height, so
assuming an equal partition, depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So
cross-section is roughly proportional to mass^0.75.

So there isn't as much difference as one might expect.

Dan

"Daniel Connelly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass. In the flat limit, speed is
roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75).

This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves .5 for width * height, so
assuming an equal partition, depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So

cross-section

Quoted message said:

is roughly proportional to mass^0.75.

So there isn't as much difference as one might expect.

Dan

Time gaps may not be different except when a rider blows up in a mountain ITT there is a risk of
losing even more time than blowing up in a flat ITT.

Mountain TTs look and feel different. The riders are going slower and you can see them struggle,
especially the fans on the course.

Daniel Connelly said:

In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass. In the flat limit, speed is
roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75).

This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves .5 for width * height, so
assuming an equal partition, depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So
cross-section is roughly proportional to mass^0.75.

So there isn't as much difference as one might expect.

topica.commessage.htmlOpen ↗

BTW, nice to see you back.

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

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50 km, but finished with a
climb. I could not find the course.

The climb was from the start. In that stage Ullrich switched the bike at the top of the climb, to
his heavy TT bike (the type that Riis used in

some

Quoted message said:

bike throwing experiment). For a stage profile, see
letour.frEtape12.swfOpen ↗

Dieter

Thanks. That does sound right and also reminds me of a few other ITTs that were similar. The first
time I can remember a rider swapping bikes in an ITT was when Phil Anderson (riding for Panasonic)
swapped his road bike for an early sloping top tube TT bike (I think with dual disks).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Sonarrat
"I

The right stage for Tom Danielson, if he ever gets that far.

-Sonarrat.

Maybe I'll get yelled at for this one, but how great is the evidence that Danielson is a great climber. I hear about his performance in the MT. Washington hill climb and yeah he broke Tylers record, but it was in better conditions and Tyler is not exactly the best climber. Actually Tyler is a pretty marginal climber. I mean there is no evidence that I see that says that Danielson has anywhere near the caliber of cliber of Mayo, Lance, Heras, Beltran, or any other spanish climber. Not as if that is bad, but everyone talks like Danielson is some climbing phenom, but there is really no evidence of this. He may be good and being as good a climber as Hamilton is a good place to be, but I think we are a bit ahead of ourselves on this one.

Daniel Connelly said:

Okay, so I neglected Cd differences, which make CdA proportional to height^0.75, but generally
independent of mass. For fixed BMI, this corresponds to CdA proportional to mass^0.38, not 0.75.
Hmmm....

Yeah. So, do you have any thoughts about how W might vary with mass?