That's incredible, defies physics, how? But how?
I've done the Tourmalet but that was a long, long time ago on a Galaxy far away.
Actually, it's in full accordance with the laws of physics. Henrik is a big strong guy, but I think you meant the bike...
To explain:
Smaller wheels accelerate faster, even when they're the same weight as a larger one (lower moment of inertia). Smaller wheels don't benefit from the flywheel effect to the same extent, for that same reason, but it certainly helps on climbs. The rear wheel on Chutney is admittedly a bit of a lump, as it has a kilo of SRAM DualDrive hub in its centre (I'll come back to that). The front wheel, on the other hand weighs about 500g (no, that's not a typo...), which is on a par with ££££££ 700c wheels like Reynolds RZRs and Lightweights. With the 2008-spec steel frame as above, Chutney weighed 10.4 kg plus pedals all in, more than most higher-end road bikes but hardly a tank. The frame was replaced with a 2010 (now aluminium) version under warranty before Henrik sold it to me- weight now just under 10kg without pedals.
Then there's the gearing. 53t chainring with the 406 wheel size is about the same as the middle ring on a 700c bike with a triple, then there's the DD hub to take into account- 37% under and overdrive ratios, so that's the granny and big rings on a 700c. I think Henrik had the stock 11-26 cassette, which with those skinny 28mm tyres on equates to something like 27-120" gear range. I've got a 12-27 cassette on now, plus 40mm tyres, so a fraction lower top end.
Light bike+strong rider+very low gears= no problems col bagging
