# Cancellara - descending in stage 7



## LeDomestique (Jan 17, 2007)

Farc !. I've NEVER seen anything like that. Unbelivable handling skills ! . His family must have had a heart attack everytime there was a switchback on the road. This is the only footage I could find

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE6LPk_Ketk

Im still shocked...


----------



## L_Johnny (Jul 15, 2006)

agree, it was pretty freaky. Sometimes he would go straight at the retention brick wall and just "sort of skid" past it. 

What's the top speed he reach in that decent?


----------



## makeitso (Sep 20, 2008)

Think VS was reporting around 100kph.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

Versus showed a better clip of him then that one. I wish they would have showed more of it. Hes impressive to watch.


----------



## shocktch45 (Dec 9, 2008)

did anyone see the clip of him during the ttt on that one right hand turn where like 4 bbox guys crashed? he seemed to keep every mph around it while the rest of his team slowed way down and almost crashed


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

He was crazy indeed.

Excellent bike handling skills for sure. Given he's Swiss, he probably rode cyclocross a fair bit too and that's helpful I'm sure. 

Yeah the TTT was also evidence (if the bunny hopping the day before and the day after isn't. Hmm, seems he likes to hop a lot) that he can handle the bike very well.

The descent was just insane. The team didn't send anyone to pace him back coz they knew it would end up slowing him down instead!

Here's the video for easier viewing.


----------



## covrc (Mar 27, 2004)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVmq4UBJs4

Here is a 7 minute clip of it. Wow!!


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

I don't know who i have more respect for on that video. FC or the guys on the bike fallowing him.


----------



## Sojourneyman (Jun 22, 2007)

covrc said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVmq4UBJs4
> 
> Here is a 7 minute clip of it. Wow!!


excellent clip. Around 4.05 things get impressive indeed


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*a) he's heavy for a pro cyclist*

more weight equals more speed. as a larger rider you become a better descender just because of gravity
by nature you are going faster, you better learn how to corner

b) he's a great TTer partially because of his handling skills. he carries speed and takes corners on those bad handling machines better than most if not all. put him on a roadbike and voila

c) he's one Paris Roubaix, bad bike handlers need not apply

awesome display


----------



## mrbull (Jun 14, 2005)

I missed watching this stage; thank you very much for posting this video! I now have cotton mouth from sitting here with my jaw dropped!


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

I saw parts of it. A really beautiful descent indeed.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

nice to see astana sit up and wait for the yellow jersey to get back after a mechanical


----------



## jonnyonthespot (May 18, 2009)

Wow, thats some perfect handling.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Eurosport says that he was hitting 90kph on that descent. He was so smooth - wonderful to watch.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

That was awesome.

The most incredible descent I've ever seen was the Solvadelli descent in the Giro a couple of years ago where he picked up time on everyone to clinch the Giro.

Len


----------



## GregH (Jul 27, 2008)

Incredible video....thanks for posting.


----------



## RSPDiver (Jun 3, 2006)

Man, that was a beautiful descent. It would be impressive to see a descent like that as a get-away attempt. But, I guess it would be kinda dangerous to build in a group descent scenario. And not nearly as dramatic, with all the weaving through cars and back marker cyclists. Good stuff, though!


----------



## jd3 (Oct 8, 2004)

I didn't know I could hold my breath for 7 minutes.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

Len J said:


> That was awesome.
> 
> The most incredible descent I've ever seen was the Solvadelli descent in the Giro a couple of years ago where he picked up time on everyone to clinch the Giro.
> 
> Len


+1

I bought the DVD of that year's Giro just for that descent.


///Floyd Landis had some great descents on his comeback stage the year he "won."


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Incredible. Cancellara was really on point with cutting corners and his overtaking. Technique aside, he was pretty daring with the Tour on the line as well as his..life?

Also, those tyres really held up well at ~90km/h, cornering even.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> c) he's one Paris Roubaix, bad bike handlers need not apply
> 
> awesome display


I know he finished number one but I think he WON Paris-Roubaix.


----------



## cityeast (Sep 16, 2004)

Well, hes got heaps of great roads to practice on..most of the mountain passes here are well looked after, with super smooth bitumen surfaces. Only the Nufenpass is a bit worrying, super fast in the Airolo direction but crappy concrete surface. 

I'm sure if they made a bigger chainring he'd decend even faster.


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

Awesome. He was cornering like he was in a MotoGP event.


----------



## spyderman (Apr 29, 2002)

Sojourneyman said:


> excellent clip. Around 4.05 things get impressive indeed


Yes, he straightened out the road at about 4:15... Great reactions...

I also loved when he came within inches while passing the white convertible...


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

atpjunkie said:


> more weight equals more speed. as a larger rider you become a better descender just because of gravity
> by nature you are going faster, you better learn how to corner


someone needs to go back and revisit high-school physics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_of_gravity

"This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, *any and all objects*, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time."


----------



## oarsman (Nov 6, 2005)

mikeyp123 said:


> someone needs to go back and revisit high-school physics...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_of_gravity
> 
> "This means that, ignoring air resistance, .....


Air resistance is extremely important in real life. A heavier rider does go down hill faster (though not strictly because of gravity).


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

oarsman said:


> Air resistance is extremely important in real life. A heavier rider does go down hill faster (though not strictly because of gravity).


Oh really? Why is that?

A heavier rider will generally have a higher coefficient of drag.. therefore have a high air resistance, therefore descend slower (assuming all other things are the same). It all depends on how "small" you make yourself to air resistance... some big riders are good at this...

Think of it this way.. why do you think Levi has such great TT times?


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

Remember this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Savoldelli


----------



## oarsman (Nov 6, 2005)

mikeyp123 said:


> Oh really? Why is that?
> 
> A heavier rider will generally have a higher coefficient of drag.. therefore have a high air resistance, therefore descend slower (assuming all other things are the same). It all depends on how "small" you make yourself to air resistance... some big riders are good at this...
> 
> Think of it this way.. why do you think Levi has such great TT times?


I am pretty sure that a more massive object will descend through air faster than a lighter one. The reason, and this is hauling out memories from 30 years ago, is that the _force_ of the more massive object is greater: _f=ma_. The force (which I suppose is a type of friction) holding that object back is dependent on air resistance, which itself is related to the area facing that air. So, making yourself "smaller" makes a huge difference, but all other things being equal, a more massive object, presenting the same profile to the wind, will fall faster.

The reverse: lighter riders tend to climb faster, is related. A bigger rider can generate more force, but not so much to compensate for the forces holding him back. 

The key is probably "all other things being equal". All other things are pretty much never equal in the real world. Your example of Salvodelli is a good one. Not terribly big, but my goodness could he descend.


----------



## iyeoh (Jan 6, 2005)

He reminds me of Ayrton Senna.. only on a bicycle.


----------



## SeeVee (Sep 25, 2005)

mikeyp123 said:


> someone needs to go back and revisit high-school physics...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_of_gravity
> 
> "This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, *any and all objects*, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time."



There is one big difference you are not taking into account. The description above is for an object in *freefall*. A freefalling object reaches terminal velocity (the point at which gravity is equal to the air resistance and accelleration stops) as described above. 

Cyclist are NOT in freefall and therefore the above formula does not apply.

Think not? You must have never participated in pinewood derby or soapbox derby.


----------



## babylou (Jul 13, 2008)

mikeyp123 said:


> someone needs to go back and revisit high-school physics...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_of_gravity


So when are you registering for class? I suggest an class in humility also.


----------



## cyclejim (Mar 31, 2004)

Man I would be shi*ing my pants if I tried that.


----------



## husonfirst (Jul 15, 2006)

He had the bike leaned WAYYY over on a couple sections. Very Impressive.


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

SeeVee said:


> There is one big difference you are not taking into account. The description above is for an object in *freefall*. A freefalling object reaches terminal velocity (the point at which gravity is equal to the air resistance and accelleration stops) as described above.
> 
> Cyclist are NOT in freefall and therefore the above formula does not apply.
> 
> Think not? You must have never participated in pinewood derby or soapbox derby.


Well
I agree that the physics thing does not apply.

I am a big guy (244 LBS this morning) and I get passed on a fairly regular basis on downhill sections as I am regulating my speed. So Fabian would pass me on those downhills because of my speed regulation even though I have 70 LBS on him.


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

Just like the pinewood derby.. weight is NOT the factor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinewood_derby#Car_modifications

Again, I'm assuming the rider is not pedaling while descending (for arguments sake). Being "smaller" generally means more aerodynamic, which means that particular force, air resistance, is working less against you... 

Here's the experiment... find a skinny cyclist, put him on a TT bike, skin-suit, the works.. take a fat guy, normal roadie setup. Find a nice straight decent, something where you can reach top speed.. then report back who hits the highest speed.

Fabian goes down hill fast because he's big, yes.. but big guys generate lots more power, and from the looks of it, he's isn't coasting downhill... that all works, just as long as you have the gearing... this has nothing to do with gravity. Gravity, on Earth, accelerates everything at 9.8 meters per second... it doesn't effect heavier objects any differently than lighter ones.. I guess that was the original point I was trying to make.

Now go win some pinewood derbies..


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

mikeyp123 said:


> Now go win some pinewood derbies..


you guys can talk physics as much as you want but the bottom line is that fabian is a good descender and that footage was 'epic'


----------



## BassNBrew (Aug 4, 2008)

mikeyp123 said:


> Just like the pinewood derby.. weight is NOT the factor:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinewood_derby#Car_modifications
> 
> Again, I'm assuming the rider is not pedaling while descending (for arguments sake). Being "smaller" generally means more aerodynamic, which means that particular force, air resistance, is working less against you...
> ...


Done this. At 215 I coast down descents and pass people who are pedaling all the time. Pay for it on the way back up. If weight didn't matter then why would lighter bike parts and frames be important? Do a piece of paper and brick take the same amount of time to hit the ground?


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

BassNBrew said:


> Done this. At 215 I coast down descents and pass people who are pedaling all the time. Pay for it on the way back up. If weight didn't matter then why would lighter bike parts and frames be important? Do a piece of paper and brick take the same amount of time to hit the ground?


Not to totally disrespect my clydesdale bretheren but wadded up paper and a brick when dropped from one meter hit at the same time. A regular sheet of paper will not.


----------



## bubbha70 (Aug 8, 2004)

Amazing.
The control and risks he takes is mind boggling.
Simply awesome.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

He's one of my favorites. He's a great time trialist, he has GREAT descending skills, and he's really very cute (the rest of you can lust after the podium girls).


----------



## messyparrot (Sep 17, 2007)

That was amazing to watch, thanks for posting the links.

That has got to be a HUGE rush to descend like that....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*it seems you never took them*




mikeyp123 said:


> someone needs to go back and revisit high-school physics...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_of_gravity
> 
> "This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, *any and all objects*, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time."


free falling objects through space have nothing in common with rolling objects

larger oblects build more momentum

and yes I can typically catch most riders on a descent coasting while they pedal
I take 4 pulls on the crank and they are a memory

and yes pinewood derby does apply. How does one cheat? try to break the weight limit
or use a magnet to get sling off the start bar

so instead of dropping a brick and piece of paper (wrong physics)

race a marble against steelie (if I said bowling ball we'd have differences in 'wheel' size)


----------



## tri-ac (Aug 4, 2008)

i would love to see his heart rate and watts together (200bpm + 0watts?!?) for that descent

or maybe he's stone cold chillin (100bpm + 0 watts)

he's got a big pair either way


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

I suggest mikeyp123 take a field trip to the west bound, downhill side of highway 6 that serves as the truck bypass over the Rockies for the I-70 Gerald Ford tunnel (no trucks are permitted to drive in the tunnel through the mountain) near Dillon, CO.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

I was frightened for him just sitting here on my fat ass.


----------



## kupe (Sep 20, 2005)

rocco said:


> I suggest mikeyp123 take a field trip to the west bound, downhill side of highway 6 that serves as the truck bypass over the Rockies for the I-70 Gerald Ford tunnel (no trucks are permitted to drive in the tunnel through the mountain) near Dillon, CO.


Actually, trucks are allowed through Eisenhower tunnel as long as they're not HazMat. HazMats have to over Loveland pass unless the pass is closed die to snow, etc., in which case they hold the trucks off to the side, wait for a prescribed time, shut down the tunnel to cars and let the trucks proceed through the tunnel. When the trucks are clear, they continue with cars. Rinse, repeat. Aside from that, yes, Loveland pass down into Dillon would be a blast. Hell, I-70 into Dillon would be a blast and it's only around 6-8%. Aside from all of that, thanks for the video. Dude's got mad skills!


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

kupe said:


> Actually, trucks are allowed through Eisenhower tunnel as long as they're not HazMat. HazMats have to over Loveland pass unless the pass is closed die to snow, etc., in which case they hold the trucks off to the side, wait for a prescribed time, shut down the tunnel to cars and let the trucks proceed through the tunnel. When the trucks are clear, they continue with cars. Rinse, repeat. Aside from that, yes, Loveland pass down into Dillon would be a blast. Hell, I-70 into Dillon would be a blast and it's only around 6-8%. Aside from all of that, thanks for the video. Dude's got mad skills!


It was. 2007 BTC.


----------



## n26ryan (Dec 14, 2005)

Very cool!


----------



## SM-Rider (May 2, 2007)

*ummm... too simplified*

The information you quote is correct. It is just not applied correctly. 

The dynamic that is not captured in these equations is that he is helped by greater mass in maintaining momentum. With the higher inertia associated with greater mass, he is able to maintain his speed better in the face of similar drag forces (relative to smaller riders) and the various accelerations (in all directions) that are needed to maintain control.




mikeyp123 said:


> someone needs to go back and revisit high-school physics...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_of_gravity
> 
> "This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, *any and all objects*, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time."


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

That was awesome! Reminded me the descending Sean Yates used to do....


----------

