RicodJour said:On May 31, 8:07 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:Fromhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may31news2
Quoted message said:"Gilberto Simoni (Saunier Duval-Prodir) conquered the 10.1-kilometre
Monte Zoncolan in 1850 metres per hour according to La Gazzetta dello
Sport. The speed, 39 minutes over the 1203 metres, 1850 VAM (Velocity
Ascended, Metres per hour Vm/h), was faster than that of Ivan Basso on
the Maielletta Passo Lanciano in 2006, 1805 VAM. Marco Pantani
blasted up the Alpe d'Huez with a 1791 VAM and Danilo Di Luca did the
final four kilometres of Tre Cime di Lavaredo with a 1750 VAM."
I'm metric-challenged. What's that in furlongs per fortnight?
VAM is not really a useful measure of climbing speed. The steeper the
climb, the higher the VAM will be for the same power output, compared
to a shallower climb. So on a climb like Zoncolan, it will be pretty
high. The only time you can fairly compare VAMs is when the climbs are
of similar gradient. Then you may as well compare average speeds. Or
power.
Out of interest, I used http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm to
estimate the power it would take someone of my weight (72kg ish) to
get up Zoncolan on a 7kg bike. I included an extra couple of kilos for
clothing/water. I would need to put about 455W if I did it on the tops
of the bars without any pacing (Simoni had the benefit of this).
That's about 100W more than I can do, but I'm a beer drinking journo,
not a pro :-) Simoni also has the benefit of a lower body weight
(62kg), so he'd need to crank out about 400W for the climb, or about
6.45W/kg.
What I'm sayin' is that I believe it's within the realms of
possibility, even at the end of a 140km stage. And yes, I realise the
above proof is not particularly scientific.
Jeff
