Talk:Climbing specialist

message: I have removed these from the list, for reasons mentioned:
* Jorg Jaksche (Germany) (Isn't that much of a climber, at least not YET)
* Dario David Cioni (Italy) (Not such a wonderful climber either)
* Stefano Garzelli (Italy) (Not that great)
* Giuseppe Guerini (Italy) (Won Alpe d'Huez once, but he hasn't been that good in recent years, can hardly finish with first 30)
* Roberto Heras (Spain) (Caught in EPO-test, so not currently in the peloton)
* David Moncoutié (France) (Quite a bad climber)
* Christophe Moreau (France) (Old and only good in his EPO-days)
* Paolo Savoldelli (Italy) (Not THAT good)
* Georg Totschnig (Austria) (Couldn't finish with the first ones in a mountain stage)
* George Hincapie (USA) (I would leave this one pending until we see what he does in this years Tour)
Also I have removed any reference to Santiago Botero since he's been pretty bad since he left Kelme (wink wink), and I removed his picture also, and inserted Marco Pantani, Botero not really a good climber.
Evito 07:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Climbing Specialists

message: OK, I'll admit it:  I hate lists.  They grow and grow and grow, there will be arguments as to why such and such should or should not be on the list.  I propose that the list is completely removed.  It is much more informative to instead give a narrative of several legendary climbers in detail, instead of just name-dropping.   I will start this in a week or so unless there is an objection.  Julius.kusuma 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time may have passed, but I completely agree. The lists are POV and original research so should be removed. Inserting some interesting text into the prose about some of the great climbers is a worthy task. SeveroTC 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I hate lists

message: An issue with the second paragraph -  this analysis is "first order" physics and may not apply to riders in an aerodynamic riding position.  The flow analysis may show an advantage for a taller, thinner, rider with a near horizontal back, independent of weight.   Codwiki (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this needs to be sorted out as if aerobic power scaled to the 2/3 power of mass smaller riders would be at no disadvantage in time trials as this is the ratio at which frontal area of simple shapes scale with mass. 81.152.58.116 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Climbing physics and physiology

message: As there is no article called simply Climbing specialist should this page exist there instead? GoodnightmushTalk 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should.  There is no need for a distinguishing parenthesis.  I will tag climbing specialist for speedy deletion so this article can be moved there.  —Akrabbimtalk 22:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Name? 

message: I've removed a commend from the end of p 2 of "Climbing physics and physiology". The comment made a physically inaccurate statement, in contrast to the well-described comments on weight / wind resistance of the rest of the paragraph; it referred directly to the article; and it used ALL CAPS and exclamation points. Cmsg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsg (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on mass and descending 

message: the article states that a more massive rider would go faster downhill. However, all beginning physics students learn very early on that all objects fall at the same rate (on a given planet). 
the force of gravity (Fg) is equal to Mass (M) * acceleration due to gravity (g)
if we neglect air resistance (merely for simplicity), the sum of the forces =Fg=Fnet=M*a
therefore M*g=M*a therefore the acceleration is equal to the acceleration due to gravity. This is independant of the mass of the rider. Thus, the more massive rider (neglect air resistance, and assuming neither rider is pedalling down hil, or is providing the same force down the hill) will descend at the same rate as the less massive rider.
the article should be changed to reflect this.
:Those commenting on the physics of this are well aware of the dyanmics of objects in freefall. The problem is that neglect of air resistance is not appropriate here. Air resistance (rather than mechanical) is generally the limiting factor in a cycle's speed. Given linear air resistance, your force term should include a term roughly proportional to a person's cross-sectional area. This is proportional to volume ^ (2/3), or roughly M^(2/3). Include that term, and the heavier cyclist accelerates faster under gravity (except at very small speeds), and has a higher unpowered downhill top speed. Cmsg 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  physics misconception 

message: The article does seem to mention a single female climbing specialist. Is this because there are no female climbing specialists, or because the selection criteria for a mention in this article is biased? Pbro (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender diversity