Bike speeds

[The_Captain]

This isn't strictly doping related, but as so much of the data and speed comparisons come from different eras I was wondering if there had been any studies done into the relative improvement in equipment. This is one area that can be scientifically tested and quantified, unlike the oft claimed "improvement in diet and training methods"

It's all very well saying that Lance or Pantani went up Alpe D'Huez in such and such time, but under lab conditions what difference would the bike and equipment available at the time make? Have bikes improved efficiency by 5%? Is it so negligible that it's not even worth considering? I honestly have no idea, but it would certainly make comparisons much more interesting when comparing times from now and yesteryear, and give us more of an idea about whether it's feasible that doping times in the past could ever be realistically matched or even bettered by clean riders now, or in the future.

 

[Hawkwood]

This isn't strictly doping related, but as so much of the data and speed comparisons come from different eras I was wondering if there had been any studies done into the relative improvement in equipment. This is one area that can be scientifically tested and quantified, unlike the oft claimed "improvement in diet and training methods"

It's all very well saying that Lance or Pantani went up Alpe D'Huez in such and such time, but under lab conditions what difference would the bike and equipment available at the time make? Have bikes improved efficiency by 5%? Is it so negligible that it's not even worth considering? I honestly have no idea, but it would certainly make comparisons much more interesting when comparing times from now and yesteryear, and give us more of an idea about whether it's feasible that doping times in the past could ever be realistically matched or even bettered by clean riders now, or in the future.

Interesting question, I can't really help, but I have got a list of the weights of some bikes used by winners of the Tour, these might give someone the data to crunch. The information comes from `Les Velos Mythiques Vainqeurs du Tour de France', I'll just do from 1972 onwards, here goes:

Merckx - 1972 - 9.6 kgs
Ocana - 1973 - 8.5 (he used one of the first titanium frames, by Speedwell, at times duing this Tour
Van Impe - 1976 - 8.3
Thevenet - 1977 - 10.0 (Peugeot insisted on trying to spec all French components, though they did use 531 and 753 tubing)
Zoetemelk - 1980 - 10.2
Hinault - 1985 - 9.6
Roche - 1987 - 9.6
Delgado - 1988 - 9.8
Indurain 1993 - 10.3 (a big no nonsense steel frame with an extra long headtube!)
Riis - 1996 - 9.0
Ulrich - 1997 - 9.0
Pantani - 1998 - 8.1 (still alloy)
Armstrong - 2002 - 8.2
Armstrong - 2003 - 7.2

Note the book was written when the above list had all won the Tour! Other major equipment changes that should be taken into account include:

Rigidity of equipment (some of the 1970s frames were spongy in the extreme)
More aero wheels now
More gears, 10 in early career of Merckx, 22 now
Easier gear selection
Wider range of gears (13-21 or -23 blocks with a 53x42 up front was normal in the 70s)
Better clothing and shoes, a pure wool pro jersey of the early 1980s that I have weighs 306 grams, a modern racing jersey also mine weighs 182.

 

[The_Captain]

Cheers. I'm not sure if weight alone is a perfect indicator, as obviously there are other advances in technology. You can see that Pantani's 98 bike weight less than Armstrongs 4 years later.

I was hoping someone had managed to get a few of the bikes and done some controlled experiments (I think just getting the same person to ride them up the same climb day after day would have too many variables to be truly reliable, although obviously the more data you get the better).

 

[ScienceIsCool]

A while back I did a little study to try to show the relative effects of technology and/or doping. To do that, I took a few one day classic races that have changed very little in terms of course over the years. Why? A one day race removes the effect of fatigue/recovery, and a stable course allows a direct comparison of speeds. And classics are important because everyone races them flat out.

The first I looked at was the average speed of the Milan San Remo race from ~1960 onwards. I chose the 60's to eliminate the effect of poorly paved or unpaved roads.

I encourage everyone to collect the data and plot it for themselves, because it was fascinating. What I found is that the average speed hasn't changed in any statistically meaningful way. MSR in 1973 is the same race as it was in 2003. From this, I concluded that although drugs and equipment may affect who makes the selection and/or wins the race, it doesn't affect the winning speed.

John Swanson

 

[The_Captain]

That's all well and good, but there are still too many variables to be able to draw any definitive conclusions. We know that drugs improve performance, so if there was no change in average winning speed, if anything it indicates that there could be some other factors at work.

This is one factor that I thought could be investigated, and then the outcomes applied to race data analysis.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's all well and good, but there are still too many variables to be able to draw any definitive conclusions.

1. Op asks question.
2. John summarizes his findings and you....
3. Discard John's contribution?

That doesn't seem like much of a discussion. Free advice: listen to John. He's a professional scientist. His experience as a professional scientist shows because he structured his past tests very elegantly. Or, you can choose a much more difficult path.

I'll throw one into the echo chamber. The dual enemies of wind resistance and gravity are much greater factors than equipment. And then there's the simple fact that innovations in the athlete's equipment are almost always shared by all teams.

 

[BigBoat]

As above, atmospherics is always changing, that being said bicycle performance is mostly down to aero and stiffness. Some of those older alloy frames like what Pantani used might have had holes drilled in them to save on weight, or he could cut his seatpost in half and do other things, they would have made his bike lighter than what the consumer would get with that particular model.... For the million dollar a year pure climber that is, for the other guys on the team maybe not so.

Even for a day in the mountains I'd take a stiff aero bike over a lighweight flyer that's oversized. The aero more than makes up for its extra weight (which is pathetically small, like 0.4 lb) all the time in between climbs, on downhills, in crosswinds, etc.

That said climbing speeds are the most affected by athlete performance, so we use those to try and guess what the top guys are doing. Clearly since nobody has ever gone higher than 6.84 w/kg for 30:24 we know that upper doping range for threshold power is around there. Doping enhances performance, its been quoted and there are literally hundreds or even thousands of witnesses. So do we know what is truly possible without, no but we have an idea based on the highest ever numbers subtracting some.

 

[DirtyWorks]

As above, atmospherics is always changing, that being said bicycle performance is mostly down to aero and stiffness.

Lots of research on this concept of stiffness and most of it conclusively states "stiffness" variously defined is not a material source of performance gains.

Fluid dynamics, (aero) absolutely affects speed per some unit of Watts. In some forum somewhere, a former engineer for Zipp posted long discussions about wind tunnel testing at a very detailed, almost personal level including testing with elite cyclists. The same guy now owns Silca, so I expect some proper advances from the "new" Silca.

 

[Ripper]

That's all well and good, but there are still too many variables to be able to draw any definitive conclusions.

Welcome to complex systems. It's unlikely to the extreme you will draw definitive conclusions to exactly how speeds have been impacted in various events over time. Correlation and contribution is where you can find the most information, but in the real world with all its variables, you need to take a ral world approach.

Interesting stuff about MSR. I am curious about all sorts of races in this way. We know the TdF has gotten faster over time. And of course there is equipment, training, and all those other 'preparations' ...

 

[The_Captain]

1. Op asks question.
2. John summarizes his findings and you....
3. Discard John's contribution?
.

I'm not discarding his contribution at all. It's still an interesting topic worth discussion on it's own. I just meant that I don't think it can definitively conclude what I was trying to find out about.

If one of today's riders entered a race using a bike from '98 for example, how much of an impact would it have on the rider's performance race at all? Would it be a "marginal" loss or would they struggle to keep up?

Of course, how much of a theoretical bike disadvantage would translate to a real world environment of a cycle race is where the discussion takes place.

 

[SirLes]

I seem to remember an article in Cycling weekly or similar where they did a test using some top young riders trying out their current bikes and also some from the late 80s? (might have been 90s)
They compared times up big climbs and I remember being a little disappointed that although the modern bikes were quicker it wasn't by a particularly large amount.

Where the modern bikes did make a difference was on the descents. From memory the riders lost more time going downhill on the old bikes than they did going up hill due to the handling and braking issues.

Made me more impressed with those older riders descending skills though.

 

[Race Radio]

I seem to remember an article in Cycling weekly or similar where they did a test using some top young riders trying out their current bikes and also some from the late 80s? (might have been 90s)
They compared times up big climbs and I remember being a little disappointed that although the modern bikes were quicker it wasn't by a particularly large amount.

Where the modern bikes did make a difference was on the descents. From memory the riders lost more time going downhill on the old bikes than they did going up hill due to the handling and braking issues.

Made me more impressed with those older riders descending skills though.

I remember this. I think it originated in a French magazine. They put powermeters on the bike and did repeats up Alp d'Huez

 

[stutue]

Interesting question, I can't really help, but I have got a list of the weights of some bikes used by winners of the Tour, these might give someone the data to crunch. The information comes from `Les Velos Mythiques Vainqeurs du Tour de France', I'll just do from 1972 onwards, here goes:

Merckx - 1972 - 9.6 kgs
Ocana - 1973 - 8.5 (he used one of the first titanium frames, by Speedwell, at times duing this Tour
Van Impe - 1976 - 8.3
Thevenet - 1977 - 10.0 (Peugeot insisted on trying to spec all French components, though they did use 531 and 753 tubing)
Zoetemelk - 1980 - 10.2
Hinault - 1985 - 9.6
Roche - 1987 - 9.6
Delgado - 1988 - 9.8
Indurain 1993 - 10.3 (a big no nonsense steel frame with an extra long headtube!)
Riis - 1996 - 9.0
Ulrich - 1997 - 9.0
Pantani - 1998 - 8.1 (still alloy)
Armstrong - 2002 - 8.2
Armstrong - 2003 - 7.2

Note the book was written when the above list had all won the Tour! Other major equipment changes that should be taken into account include:

Rigidity of equipment (some of the 1970s frames were spongy in the extreme)
More aero wheels now
More gears, 10 in early career of Merckx, 22 now
Easier gear selection
Wider range of gears (13-21 or -23 blocks with a 53x42 up front was normal in the 70s)
Better clothing and shoes, a pure wool pro jersey of the early 1980s that I have weighs 306 grams, a modern racing jersey also mine weighs 182.

Thanks for that. Made me reminisce about my steel 1970's Peugeot pro.

Two points. Steel frames were never that stiff, nor were the wheels. The advent of aluminium frames addressed that, in the 80's.

Secondly, it isn't just technology that has changed but also knowledge of physiology, nutrition and hydration.

As an extreme example, it wasn't very far back that taking a drink of water was seen as a sign of weakness.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Secondly, it isn't just technology that has changed but also knowledge of physiology, nutrition and hydration.

As an extreme example, it wasn't very far back that taking a drink of water was seen as a sign of weakness.

Weakness? By whom? And how far back? More than 25 years ago? This is a review study ie a summarising of studies conducted to date:

Sports nutrition. Approaching the nineties.
...
Competition poses the challenge of identifying possible factors limiting performance, and taking steps to delay or reduce these. Of paramount importance is body temperature regulation through the maintenance of hydration levels. This issue has long been recognised
...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2675259

Whilst I agree knowledge has improved, I am doubting its impact is as significant as "drinking water is a sign of weakness".

The power-duration curve that is used in WKO was discussed in a study from 1976:

 

[Ripper]

Weakness? By whom? And how far back? More than 25 years ago? This is a review study ie a summarising of studies conducted to date:



Whilst I agree knowledge has improved, I am doubting its impact is as significant as "drinking water is a sign of weakness".

The power-duration curve that is used in WKO was discussed in a study from 1976:

I believe he is referring to the times when JA was the TT extraordinaire.

 

[Catwhoorg]

As an extreme example, it wasn't very far back that taking a drink of water was seen as a sign of weakness.

Didn't the tour used to limit the number of bidons ?

 

[stutue]

Weakness? By whom? And how far back? More than 25 years ago? This is a review study ie a summarising of studies conducted to date:

Whilst I agree knowledge has improved, I am doubting its impact is as significant as "drinking water is a sign of weakness".

I'm making a more general point about the incremental gains over decades influencing speeds and giving you an extreme example.

Certainly in the 30 years that I rode, quite seriously competitively at times, I look back at some of the things we believed in the early days and am staggered by how ridiculous some of it now seems.

You'd be quite surprised at how much superstition was passed off as science.

 

[doperhopper]

I'm making a more general point about the incremental gains over decades influencing speeds and giving you an extreme example.

Certainly in the 30 years that I rode, quite seriously competitively at times, I look back at some of the things we believed in the early days and am staggered by how ridiculous some of it now seems.

You'd be quite surprised at how much superstition was passed off as science.

may I ask for some details, please, everyone will appreaciate

 

[The_Captain]

I seem to remember an article in Cycling weekly or similar where they did a test using some top young riders trying out their current bikes and also some from the late 80s? (might have been 90s)
They compared times up big climbs and I remember being a little disappointed that although the modern bikes were quicker it wasn't by a particularly large amount.

Where the modern bikes did make a difference was on the descents. From memory the riders lost more time going downhill on the old bikes than they did going up hill due to the handling and braking issues.

Made me more impressed with those older riders descending skills though.

Cheers. Would be interesting to dig out the article and read it myself. Any idea when it was?

 

[Almeisan]

What about energy gels?

I thought that one limiting factor was the ability of digestion to keep up with the calories burned. If you had to get all those calories from bananas and bread you would bonk.

Not sure if true.

 

[stutue]

may I ask for some details, please, everyone will appreaciate

Well the water thing was very prevalent. Even now amongst some of the old boys...empty bottle cages for rides under100k. Not drinking was a macho statement. But alcohol was ok.

Also eating. Not so much what you ate but when. No eating on the bike.

Training was just lots and lots of repetitive miles. Nothing wrong in that as a constituent of a training regime, but there was, at least in the UK, a huge conservativism and closed a mindedness to the cross a pollination of ideas from the running world...what we now call interval training, and take for granted.

Then there are all the old-wives tales like ice-cream makes your stomach muscles slack, coffee gives you liver spasms, etc etc

 

[Hawkwood]

Well the water thing was very prevalent. Even now amongst some of the old boys...empty bottle cages for rides under100k. Not drinking was a macho statement. But alcohol was ok.

Also eating. Not so much what you ate but when. No eating on the bike.

Training was just lots and lots of repetitive miles. Nothing wrong in that as a constituent of a training regime, but there was, at least in the UK, a huge conservativism and closed a mindedness to the cross a pollination of ideas from the running world...what we now call interval training, and take for granted.

Then there are all the old-wives tales like ice-cream makes your stomach muscles slack, coffee gives you liver spasms, etc etc

I think it was Anquetil who recommended one bottle per stage, but then he was on a diet of champagne, cigars (I think), drugs, and sex!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think it was Anquetil who recommended one bottle per stage, but then he was on a diet of champagne, cigars (I think), drugs, and sex!

You only live once, but if you live like Anquetil, once is enough.

Ol' blue eyes won't mind if I borrow his phrase.

 

[Volderke]

It is very hard to say something about the influence of the bike.
I am sure the bikes have improved, but just look at the climbing times of e.g. the Poggio: http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/03/historical-ascent-times-up-legendary_13.html

There is really no good relation to be made between climbing times and bikes. First of all, the races are different each year (tactics, weather, speed before the ascend), but more importantly, the best climbing times were in the early '90s, together with the widespread use of EPO. So the rider has a much bigger influence than the bike. Until this day, an early carbon frame with steel fork, heavy alu gruppo, quill stem and traditional wheels still holds the record on the Poggio. Just to put things in perspective.

I am ready to do a full analysis if I get a good dataset of as many variables as possible, in order to point out if bike weight (or any other factual bike parameter) has any influence (that is more than just random) on the overall performance. So thinking of climbing times, rider weight, bike weight, aero components, aero wheels, time trial-like competitions preferred. But I already feel not much will come out, even from the very best set of data. The best real life test I can think of, would be to mix 50% old bikes, at random, in the peloton, and put some power meters on them.

 

[slowspoke]

It is very hard to say something about the influence of the bike.
I am sure the bikes have improved, but just look at the climbing times of e.g. the Poggio: http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/03/historical-ascent-times-up-legendary_13.html

There is really no good relation to be made between climbing times and bikes. First of all, the races are different each year (tactics, weather, speed before the ascend), but more importantly, the best climbing times were in the early '90s, together with the widespread use of EPO. So the rider has a much bigger influence than the bike. Until this day, an early carbon frame with steel fork, heavy alu gruppo, quill stem and traditional wheels still holds the record on the Poggio. Just to put things in perspective.
/QUOTE]
That Milan San Remo in 1995 is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. how is Jalabert still alive?