Climbing Speeds

Whenever I speak with people about Sky doping or, doping in the peloton, all I hear is "aye, but climbing speeds are down"

So climbing speeds are down on the big climbs, therefore its clean. Surly its not THAT clear cut!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
MartinGT said:
Whenever I speak with people about Sky doping or, doping in the peloton, all I hear is "aye, but climbing speeds are down"

So climbing speeds are down on the big climbs, therefore its clean. Surly its not THAT clear cut!
Any time there's a peloton of riders, tactics matter.

Solo TTs are a better indication.

And in that respect, Sky are punting everyone.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
I think the BP has had an impact in overall speeds up mountains. On the flip side that might just mean that as many people are doping just not to the levels as before.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
This is what Bernhard Kohl had to say about the general speed of racing in the Tour, a couple of years ago.

"While Kohl wouldn't directly speculate on whether Alberto Contador had used doping products or methods, he noted that the average speeds ridden at the Tour might cause one to think so.

"Floyd Landis won the Tour de France and his average speed was 40 kph," Kohl said. "This year it was Contador and it was also about 40. It was nearly the same average speed. Landis was doped. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, you can win (without drugs) if we work with the anti-doping movement."

Guess what speed BWs win was?
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
SundayRider said:
This is what Bernhard Kohl had to say about the general speed of racing in the Tour, a couple of years ago.

"While Kohl wouldn't directly speculate on whether Alberto Contador had used doping products or methods, he noted that the average speeds ridden at the Tour might cause one to think so.

"Floyd Landis won the Tour de France and his average speed was 40 kph," Kohl said. "This year it was Contador and it was also about 40. It was nearly the same average speed. Landis was doped. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, you can win (without drugs) if we work with the anti-doping movement."

Guess what speed BWs win was?
And how did the courses compare? What were the tactics on each stage, the wind. There are a whole factor of things.

You already posted a list of overall speeds for tours and from reading that it implies people were doping more in the early 80s then in the early 90s for some years.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
And how did the courses compare? What were the tactics on each stage, the wind. There are a whole factor of things.

You already posted a list of overall speeds for tours and from reading that it implies people were doping more in the early 80s then in the early 90s for some years.
Yes, and most likely they were. Yes course/wind/tactics play a part but remember the race is over 3 whole weeks in the same month each year - so over statistically speaking over a number of years, patterns emerge.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
SundayRider said:
Yes, and most likely they were. Yes course/wind/tactics play a part but remember the race is over 3 whole weeks in the same month each year - so over statistically speaking over a number of years, patterns emerge.
Of course patterns emerge. Whether you can read anything into them is another matter entirely.
 
Sep 22, 2012
542
0
0
SundayRider said:
This is what Bernhard Kohl had to say about the general speed of racing in the Tour, a couple of years ago.

"While Kohl wouldn't directly speculate on whether Alberto Contador had used doping products or methods, he noted that the average speeds ridden at the Tour might cause one to think so.

"Floyd Landis won the Tour de France and his average speed was 40 kph," Kohl said. "This year it was Contador and it was also about 40. It was nearly the same average speed. Landis was doped. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, you can win (without drugs) if we work with the anti-doping movement."

Guess what speed BWs win was?
I guess BW's was 35.2 Kph
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
So what is considered a 'clean' average speed?
who knows? There is obviously pressure from TV companies to get the front end of the race finished in a certain amount of time/at a certain time.
 
FWIW

2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55

But you really need to take into account hardness of stages, how they were raced, weather etc.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
del1962 said:
FWIW

2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55

But you really need to take into account hardness of stages, how they were raced, weather etc.
I think they are doping now just at about 60-70% of the level that they were when it was at its 'peak'.
 
great!

this is great...........perfect clinic material

just like the sky thread.................where nothing can be proven from

available data............the debate can go on..............and on
 
SundayRider said:
I think they are doping now just at about 60-70% of the level that they were when it was at its 'peak'.
Think what you like, just don't put it across as some truth,

More Data that tells us little

2012 39.9
2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55
1999 40.28
1998 41.76
1997 39.19
1996 40.7
1995 39.5
1994 37.83
1993 38.71
1992 39.5
1991 38.75
1990 38.6
1989 37.48
1988 38.9
1987 36.65
1986 37
1985 36.23
1984 34.9
1983 35.9
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
del1962 said:
Think what you like, just don't put it across as some truth,

More Data that tells us little

2012 39.9
2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55
1999 40.28
1998 41.76
1997 39.19
1996 40.7
1995 39.5
1994 37.83
1993 38.71
1992 39.5
1991 38.75
1990 38.6
1989 37.48
1988 38.9
1987 36.65
1986 37
1985 36.23
1984 34.9
1983 35.9
Don't know where you got that data from but its a little different to the data I had.

Whilst this thread can't prove that cycling is cleaner now than it was then, it can prove that cycling is just as FAST as it was when doping was apparently much more widespread.
 
ebandit said:
this is great...........perfect clinic material

just like the sky thread.................where nothing can be proven from

available data............the debate can go on..............and on
The op has started a legitimate and interesting discussion about climbing speeds. The only link to sky was the perfectly valid comment that sky point to lower speeds meaning cleanliness.

Must you come in to any post someone who doesn't trust sky makes with this "show me.the evidence" line. Its getting tiring already. Sometimes the discussions are not about the evidence.

Like this thread.

SundayRider said:
That speed which is incidentally, faster than Riis's 96 tour win, Ullrich's 97 win and couple of LA's 'wins'.

Average speeds are.too.reliant.on whether the peloton chases a break or.lets them take the stage by 15 minutes on transition stages. Thy are not the best way to calculate performance.
That said sky did do most of the work in that tour so.it may be something worth keeping in mind.

Btw.what was nibalis average speed? wouldn't it be quite similar to wiggins in which case showing again that average.speeds are not the best way to do.this.
 
SundayRider said:
Don't know where you got that data from but its a little different to the data I had.

Whilst this thread can't prove that cycling is cleaner now than it was then, it can prove that cycling is just as FAST as it was when doping was apparently much more widespread.
This thread can't proove anything, the data came from wiki, however some may be wrong, I noted that for 1972 wiki gave two values, one slightly above 38kph while on th say page it says slightly below 37, but it is data that is sufficient for the clinic.

I think 1995 was when radios where introduced
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Ironic that the fastest ever speed was in 1998, when the Tour was being raided by the Gendarmes on a regular basis!

Does anyone have the 1981 or 1982 average speed? I recall that for one of these years, the average speed was ~39kph, which really makes analysis of the 1980s difficult.

Worthy of note though is that the average speed increased slightly more from 1983 to 1990 than it did during the subsequent years when EPO use went from experimental (1991) to universal (1995/96).

What were they doing in 1994?
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
MartinGT said:
So when someone says "Climbing speeds are lower" it means nothing due to the tactics, weather, what par cours, where the climbs are etc.
One has to take things with a pinch of salt, for the reasons you state, but there's not a huge variation from one year to the next in tactics, weather, route etc. So when one can observe with one's own stopwatch that the ascent of Alpe D'Huez in 2011 took the top guys 3-4 minutes longer (*), when they were racing seriously (**) than during the EPO years, one would be unwise to ignore the information.

(*) EPO years ascent times: 37:30 to 38:30 approx. In 2011, Rolland was fastest (~41 minutes) with Evans and the Schlecks ~42 minutes. Berto and SS were somewhere in between. For reference, the 2011 times are on a par with the fastest achieved in the late 1980s, though there are more riders in that range now than there was then.

(**) as evidenced by the state Contador (pedalling squares) and Franck S (slumped against barriers) at the end of the stage.

It should be noted that the 2011 ADH stages was unusual, being both short (110k) and subject to Berto's attack with 100k to go. These factors would work in opposite directions on the final climb speed, one would think. Short stage = good; fast early pace = bad.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts