Talk:VAM (bicycling)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cycling This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is grossly misnamed -- it is Vertical Ascending, not Velocity, but there's no good way to rename a page.

Actually,going back to Ferrari, it's an awkward translation, which should be explained in the body with

cite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrower (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 July 2009

The current title is Mean ascent velocity. However, the most commonly used term to refer to this concept is VAM. VAM is currently a dab page, and probably should remain so. Perhaps the best title for this article is VAM (bicycling)? --B2C 16:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it to VAM (bicycling). The body of the article already used "VAM" - so I just updated the intro. Fixing links now. --B2C 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is an odd article. A small thing, metres meters, it was originally written using metres, why has that been changed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beats me. I noticed the one "metres" spelling juxtaposed to the multiple "meters" so changed the one for consistency, but you reverted. You're right, the original was "metres", so now I've changed them all to that, and add the British English template to this talk page. --B2C 16:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Relative Power formula seems incorrect. As written, assuming you hold vertical speed constant, as the grade steepens power declines, quite dramatically. 50.193.56.98 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed two wrong statements in "Background". From: "Ferrari also stated that every one percent increase in average gradient decreases VAM by 50. For example, a 1700 VAM on a climb of 8 percent average grade is a performance equivalent to a VAM of 1650 on 9 percent average grade" to: "Ferrari also stated that VAM values exponentially rise up with every gradient increase. For example, a 1180 VAM of a 64 kg rider on a 5% gradient is equivalent to a VAM of 1400 m/h on a 10 % or a VAM of 1675 m/h on a 13% gradient." The VAM is obviously higher on a steeper climb, otherwise you would climb fastest on a flat road (where you actually don't climb at all). VAM also doesn't increase linearly with the gradient and certainly not by the same constant factor for every rider (regardless of weight and power output). Ferrari explains it here: http://www.53x12.com/?id=48&page=article#!uphill-gradient-and-vam/a6v05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.225.119 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do the examples also not make sense? VAM is meaningless without also taking into account grade, and the examples do not mention grades. The site you linked says that "a rider weighing 64 kg and pedaling at 300 watts" can do 1675 m/h on a 13% slope, which according to the examples would make him a Top 10 / Tour de France GC or mountain stage winner. This seems unlikely to me. 204.14.158.42 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, cycling enthusiasts. I am not familiar with your topic; I came here through an error report. I fixed the issue with the error after going through the editing history on the page (a source was entered with no details 03/13/2020, so I don't think it was ever valid).

During my review of the editing history I found a source that had been removed.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121252/

I don't know if anyone feels it needs to be incorporated in the article, but since I don't imagine many will be of a mind to go through the page's editing history to discover it, I wanted to list it here for anyone who thinks it has information relevant to the article's topic.

Cheers! OIM20 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]