56kh ITT

[The_Cheech]

Re: Re:

"Almost 60kh".

The only thing less suited to drawing conclusions than the average speed of a single isolated stage must be the grossly inflated average speed of a single isolated stage.

The real speed is 55.446 kmh. Hell even the 56 in the title is rounded wrong just for the sensationalism.

Are you trolling?

Are you seriously going to call me out over .004 of a second, ignoring the fact that we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs/prologues in recent history?

Really?

Really?

Disagreeing with you with a simple fact can hardly be called trolling.

If he were disagreeing with me over something substantial it would be OK. That he's on an ego trip looking to make .006 kph The Issue when we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs in the history of the the "clean" TdF is not disagreeing.

 

[Pulp]

Re:

Wiggo has just broken the hour record of 54.526 with a bike that could have been used today in the ITT and you find unbelievable that, although the course had some corners, the guy rode at 54.446 for 13 km? Either Wiggo is a major cheater or Dennis' performance isn't incredible

I I pretty much agree with your point, but would like to point out that the guy rode at 55,446 for 13 km, not 54,446. Had it been the latter this thread would have been completely meaningless.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Walsh was quoting speeds as proof of doping prior to Sky and recommended books to various people about how things like speed prove performances are not natural and clean.

http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/the-2014-tour-performance-implications-a-reflection-on-the-origins/

That article, and what Ross Tucker and the other guys do, is about climbing times.

What TT times are not indicative of anything? Of course they are.

 

[King Boonen]

But Rohan is looking really lean in upperbody, the AICAR and GW peptides with other stuff.

Small point, but neither of those are peptides.

 

[Benotti69]

Is it really that unbelievable?

Lemond did what, 54 km/h (?) some 20+ years ago and the consensus seems to be that he was clean. Would a 56 km/h performance on a shorter course really be a case of Edgar?

Can it no be about aerodynamics?

Any way you slice it, Dennis was aero as **** today!

Why did it take that long to break? Aerodynamics have been around for a long time now, not just introduced in 2015!

Anyway you slice it Dennis was powerful, fast and doped today.

Well, do you consider Lemond to be a cheat? If not, he must be an outlier, right? And by definition, outliers don't happened that often… Maybe this is one?

Well, aerodynamics, much like, you know, all science, tend to develop incrementally. Thus if Lemond was an outlier, it would take some time to catch him.

And, it was broken, wasn't it? Those doped up americans in the 2005 Tour went faster than Lemond, did they not?

Not sure about LeMond. Used to think the guy was clean, but he doesn't really mind any dopers as long as they are not American.

If Dennis was an outlier, we would've heard JV screaming that he just found the next LeMond, but Dennis left Garmin half way through a season. Too much crazy adaptive physiology for JV's Machine tests...........

 

[Eagle]

Re: Re:

"Almost 60kh".

The only thing less suited to drawing conclusions than the average speed of a single isolated stage must be the grossly inflated average speed of a single isolated stage.

The real speed is 55.446 kmh. Hell even the 56 in the title is rounded wrong just for the sensationalism.

Are you trolling?

Are you seriously going to call me out over .004 of a second, ignoring the fact that we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs/prologues in recent history?

Really?

Really?

Disagreeing with you with a simple fact can hardly be called trolling.

If he were disagreeing with me over something substantial it would be OK. That he's on an ego trip looking to make .006 kph The Issue when we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs in the history of the the "clean" TdF is not disagreeing.

Its 0.554km/h difference, not .006km/h

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

Wiggo has just broken the hour record of 54.526 with a bike that could have been used today in the ITT and you find unbelievable that, although the course had some corners, the guy rode at 54.446 for 13 km? Either Wiggo is a major cheater or Dennis' performance isn't incredible

Both, Wiggo is a cheater and Dennis's performance is not credible.

To be fair though, you don't find any performance credible.

I just wonder what speeds would be acceptable, and whether you ever think performance can be improved through other means than doping? Do you think for example that we have already reached the glass ceiling of athletic performance, and now now the only way to smash through it is through nefarious means?

I've always said performance isn't proof. I'm also open to the idea that speeds will always increase incrementally over time, fuelled by other advances than simply doping.

 

[Merckx index]

Anyone able to estimate RD's frontal area? It appears that he put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 watts, or 7.75 - 8.50 watts/kg, but that seems too high, and I really don't know what numbers to plug in for air resistance. I think when we get numbers in the right range, though, we'll find a power output that puts a lot of these climbing times to shame.

Oh, and did he have a net tailwind?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Wiggo has just broken the hour record of 54.526 with a bike that could have been used today in the ITT and you find unbelievable that, although the course had some corners, the guy rode at 54.446 for 13 km? Either Wiggo is a major cheater or Dennis' performance isn't incredible

Both, Wiggo is a cheater and Dennis's performance is not credible.

To be fair though, you don't find any performance credible.

I just wonder what speeds would be acceptable, and whether you ever think performance can be improved through other means than doping? Do you think for example that we have already reached the glass ceiling of athletic performance, and now now the only way to smash through it is through nefarious means?

I've always said performance isn't proof. I'm also open to the idea that speeds will always increase incrementally over time, fuelled by other advances than simply doping.

Riding faster at the TT than anyone else has done before sure aint pointing towards things being clean.

The glass ceiling was reached long ago, not that many knew what it was or when it was reached, because most doped.

All we here is the recycling of 'technique', 'training harder than anyone', 'diet', 'sleeping', etc, stuff that Coppi was doing in the 50s and most teams since, so the reinvention of the wheel continues, but yet it is still circular!! Hmm so what is pushing back records, obviously the only thing that is evolving faster than everything else, PEDs.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Walsh was quoting speeds as proof of doping prior to Sky and recommended books to various people about how things like speed prove performances are not natural and clean.

http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/the-2014-tour-performance-implications-a-reflection-on-the-origins/

That article, and what Ross Tucker and the other guys do, is about climbing times.

What TT times are not indicative of anything? Of course they are.

They are, but they require a lot more data to analyze, data we don't currently have (Merckx index has just barely started to provide that kind of info, and it's still not enough). That doesn't change the fact that you're referencing an article as if it support your position, when it does nothing of the sort.

If he were disagreeing with me over something substantial it would be OK. That he's on an ego trip looking to make .006 kph The Issue when we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs in the history of the the "clean" TdF is not disagreeing.

Ego trip? Sure, whatever floats your boat.
I disagreed with the whole notion of using the average speed of isolated stages to base an argument on, but maybe you missed that. Nevertheless, since your whole point rests on the average speed, I'd say what I'm pointing out is pretty substantial.

You still haven't owned up your mistake, by the way, which is quite dishonest.

 

[JimmyFingers]

[in reply to Benotti btw] Coppi took la bomba, just an FYI. So there is nothing apart from PEDs that improves performances then? So we've seen the fastest man can go on a bike (LeMond?) on pan y agua, so anything faster must be doped. I don't share that opinion however, I'm also not a Luddite so while I see how it suits the narrative to try to decry advances in nutrition, training, and bikes as 're-inventing the wheel' clearly all of those things can and will continue to improve, and will have a concomitant affect on performance.

Uh oh, about to disappear down the clinic rabbit hole. But I hope that is a reasoned take on Rohan's performance. Very good, very good indeed, but not something unbelievable in terms of human performance.

 

[TourOfTexas]

He appeared to have a tailwind. I can tell by some of the flags and from riding quite a few TTs in my time.

 

[burning]

Re:

Anyone able to estimate RD's frontal area? It appears that he put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 watts, or 7.75 - 8.50 watts/kg, but that seems too high, and I really don't know what numbers to plug in for air resistance. I think when we get numbers in the right range, though, we'll find a power output that puts a lot of these climbing times to shame.

Oh, and did he have a net tailwind?

How can he have a net tailwind when the start and finish are pretty much on the same point, I was just curious if this is possible at all.

 

[danielovichdk2]

Re:

Anyone able to estimate RD's frontal area? It appears that he put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 watts, or 7.75 - 8.50 watts/kg, but that seems too high, and I really don't know what numbers to plug in for air resistance. I think when we get numbers in the right range, though, we'll find a power output that puts a lot of these climbing times to shame.

Oh, and did he have a net tailwind?

550-600 watts are IMO way too high. I would guess on 450-480.

Not sure about the wind though

 

[danielovichdk2]

Re: Re:

Anyone able to estimate RD's frontal area? It appears that he put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 watts, or 7.75 - 8.50 watts/kg, but that seems too high, and I really don't know what numbers to plug in for air resistance. I think when we get numbers in the right range, though, we'll find a power output that puts a lot of these climbing times to shame.

Oh, and did he have a net tailwind?

How can he have a net tailwind when the start and finish are pretty much on the same point, I was just curious if this is possible at all.

Look at the route. It's not possible unless the wind changes during those 15 minutes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

"Almost 60kh".

The only thing less suited to drawing conclusions than the average speed of a single isolated stage must be the grossly inflated average speed of a single isolated stage.

The real speed is 55.446 kmh. Hell even the 56 in the title is rounded wrong just for the sensationalism.

Are you trolling?

Are you seriously going to call me out over .004 of a second, ignoring the fact that we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs/prologues in recent history?

Really?

Really?

Disagreeing with you with a simple fact can hardly be called trolling.

If he were disagreeing with me over something substantial it would be OK. That he's on an ego trip looking to make .006 kph The Issue when we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs in the history of the the "clean" TdF is not disagreeing.

Its 0.554km/h difference, not .006km/h

Ah, but if you round up 55,446 to 55,45... you can then round that up to 55,5... which you can then round up to 56.

Thus are misrepresentations born - after all, if you go straight from 5sf to 3, you have to round down, to 55,4, and then to 55 rather than 56.

Not sure where this .006kph difference has come from, there's no .006 anywhere.

The thing I'm most bothered about is that I won't be able to bring up Rubén Plaza's awesome wind-assisted 2005 Vuelta TT anymore now it's been topped.

 

[MarkvW]

Quintana the time trialer! I love the TdF!!!!!

 

[jmdirt]

RD might be doped, or he might be clean(er). That being said, I agree that you can't compare an opening day 13.8K performance with a day 21 24.5K performance, and conclude doping.

The fastest ever GT TT is Plaza 56.22 (05) 39K
LeMond 54.55 (89) 24.5K
Dennis 55.4 (15)13.8K

EDIT: other factors to consider when comparing performances: course profile, road surface, wind, temperature, elevation, humidity, dry/wet, equipment...

 

[danielovichdk2]

Re:

Quintana the time trialer! I love the TdF!!!!!

Now, that is a different story. Amazing how he manage to pull that off. He was even faster than Richie

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

The thing I'm most bothered about is that I won't be able to bring up Rubén Plaza's awesome wind-assisted 2005 Vuelta TT anymore now it's been topped.[/quote]


Plaza is still the fastest GT TT. Dennis just became the fastest TdF TT.

 

[doperhopper]

Meh, must be tailwind. Next topic, please.

Looking forward to see marginal uphill foehn on Alpe, beating EPO times, beacause... this Brailsfraud's prophecy of New Clean Era riders beating dirty times simply has to fulfill also on Mythical climbs on day.

 

[BYOP88]

Meh, must be tailwind. Next topic, please.

Looking forward to see marginal uphill foehn on Alpe, beating EPO times, beacause... this Brailsfraud's prophecy of New Clean Era riders beating dirty times simply has to fulfill also on Mythical climbs on day.

Oh Froome said in a newspaper today, that they have better equipment now, than what they did in 2000. That's why the times of dopers can now be beaten.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Plaza is still the fastest GT TT. Dennis just became the fastest TdF TT.

Excellent news. Rubinho is a beast and a legend.

 

[The_Cheech]

Re: Re:

"Almost 60kh".

The only thing less suited to drawing conclusions than the average speed of a single isolated stage must be the grossly inflated average speed of a single isolated stage.

The real speed is 55.446 kmh. Hell even the 56 in the title is rounded wrong just for the sensationalism.

Are you trolling?

Are you seriously going to call me out over .004 of a second, ignoring the fact that we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs/prologues in recent history?

Really?

Really?

Disagreeing with you with a simple fact can hardly be called trolling.

If he were disagreeing with me over something substantial it would be OK. That he's on an ego trip looking to make .006 kph The Issue when we've just witnessed one of the fastest ITTs in the history of the the "clean" TdF is not disagreeing.

Its 0.554km/h difference, not .006km/h

I was responding to him throwing the kitchen sink at me for rounding up from .446 to .5.

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

I was responding to him throwing the kitchen sink at me for rounding up from .446 to .5.

The kitchen sink was thrown for rounding up 0,446 to 1.....