Climbing Speeds

[del1962]

sorry mastersracer you are mistaken, the opposite is usually the case. Threads get highjacked and derailed by Sky fans seeing anti-Wiggo slurs under every bush and leaping in jackboots and all defending their man.

I can understand you wanting the discussion to be just about facts and figures, but perhaps you should open your mind to a holistic approach, as facts are not necessarily readily available, when they DO get presented certain apologists blithely shrug them off anyway as being inconsequential or irrelevant.

The endless discussions about Sir Wiggos comments on "Captain" Dodger cranking out 500W to scythe down any pretenders, Basso winking about 420W not being enough to hold the wheel of the Dodger/Porte/Froome train etc come to mind.

And they often tell a story that is not what was intended, one example being just upstream when someone mentioned a rider improving to 5.8W/kg meant diddl with anther poster responding that 5.8W/kg is watt (lol) Lemond achieved. Which funnily enough is the actual topic under discussion

Then we have the situation of 2012 where the OVERALL times and powers might have fallen compared to the Armstrong era free for all, but SPECIFIC outputs are just as high such as Dodger/Porte/Froome crushing all before them in the Pyrenees or say La Planche des Belles Filles WHEN IT MATTERED but then soft peddling to the finish line.



easy

This (the bolded part is really not true) and if you can't see this I must say you are really not moderator material

Added : (For evidence read post 5, where BW was first mentioned)

 

[del1962]

the bold dates refer to speed increments of 2km -which needless to say is a huge number- so by that rational- we really haven't seen a "dramatically decrease in speed" from the current "clean" peloton in comparison to the "dirty" peloton from the 90's, regardless how lengthy or hard the parcours were back then...

I would have thought that as training methods tend to gradually improove year on year etc, any sort of general move backwards is indicative of a cleaner peleton

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'd say that road racing is anything but predictable, at least compared to other endurance sports (e.g., running). Now stage racing in particular might be a different story...in which case, I find it rather telling that Wiggins garnered all (or almost all) of his Vs last year simply by TTing well then not giving that time back on climbs.

Good point! I was implicitly referring to stage races, as this thread revolves round Sky and Wiggins.

One day races are very unpredictable, due to the tactical side of things. Stage race tactics seem - to me on the outside - much less complicated.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Did Ross Tucker write a follow up piece on the later mountain stages?

Ross the Cycling Scientist seems to have lost intrest in cycling this year. He was all over the place since LA's comeback but suddenly, enfin, must be a coincidence.

When someone who has been a fan of the sport and watching for many years observes something that doesn't look right, then that is an important piece of information. At the same time, when the data indicates that the performance is within what is possible from a clean rider, then that also is important and should be a sign, not to drop the inquiry, but to look broader for other information. It's all important and none of it should be discounted in the way it has in some of the discussion/argument.

Totally agree.

Because they aren't relevant questions to me. As I said, if you want to win NOW, you need to know what people are doing NOW (doped or not). Quantifying the climbing speed of today's athletes vs. those of several decades ago does not help in this endeavor, nor is it really useful as an anti-doping measure (which isn't really my bailiwick either).

L'histoire ce repete doesn't mean anything to datamen like you. Who is doing what, where and why should be the question for scientists. Maybe you just forgot that.

Really had to laugh at those book pages, ''So the philosophy became: don't go to the race to train, but train first, go to fewer races and go there to win''.

Funny stuff. Others of course do not train before races, do not race to win. Do people really believe this kinda BS?

 

[acoggan]

L'histoire ce repete doesn't mean anything to datamen like you. Who is doing what, where and why should be the question for scientists. Maybe you just forgot that.

So you're saying that every scientist in the world, regardless of their field of expertise or current research endeavors, should drop what they're doing and focus their efforts on eliminating doping from the sport of cycling? Gotcha...

 

[acoggan]

Everyone in the sports science world (according to Krebs Cycle, except Ed Coyle but he doesn't say that, it's implied) knew X, Y and Z were doping

Point-of-fact: while he never came right out and said it, I got the distinct impression from Ed's scoffing tone, facial expression, etc., when discussing Armstrong's data that he (Ed) suspected Armstrong of doping. (This conversation took place when Ed first presented the data in poster form at a small scientific meeting in 2002.)

 

[hfer07]

I would have thought that as training methods tend to gradually improve year on year etc, any sort of general move backwards is indicative of a cleaner peleton

that's my point:

I concede that Pro Cycling has improved enormously on Training methods, diet, equipment, professional approach, etc to the point that justifies certain gains in average speed-HOWEVER- those improvements "supposedly" on a "cleaner peloton" are near equal to the ones obtained by a "dirty" peloton 15 years ago. We're talking about jumping from-at least credible & healthy- 37.5 Kph to a sustained 39.5 Kph speed consistent during the late 90's through the LA days--- So I seriously doubt that a 15 year progress in Professional improvements can make up the speeds of a peloton on massive doping regiment......

 

[The Hitch]

Seriously?

Yes 80th in the Tour. 120th in the tour. They were hardly road racing champions

Let's not make Sky's wonderful performance something it's not. They controlled everything nicely but that's about it.

They didnt beat everyone in the mountains? They dropped everyone on Peyresoudes. On PDBF they broke everyone but Evans who they cracked later. On the 1 or 2 mountain stages where others tried anything they never even managed to get a second. How do you see that as not dropping everyone?

But as we all know gc placings outside top 10 are irrelevant, so he rose max 10 relevant gc places

Yes, everyone has the ability to top 10. Even Cav if he wanted to

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

that's my point:

I concede that Pro Cycling has improved enormously on Training methods, diet, equipment, professional approach, etc to the point that justifies certain gains in average speed-HOWEVER- those improvements "supposedly" on a "cleaner peloton" are near equal to the ones obtained by a "dirty" peloton 15 years ago. We're talking about jumping from-at least credible & healthy- 37.5 Kph to a sustained 39.5 Kph speed consistent during the late 90's through the LA days--- So I seriously doubt that a 15 year progress in Professional improvements can make up the speeds of a peloton on massive doping regiment......

1952 About 32.2
1972 About 35.5
1992 About 39.5
2012 About 39.8

If you work on 2-2.5 kmh per 20 years the speed last year is bang on. The huge difference is 1992 when there was a leap of 4 kmh in twenty years.

Proves nowt though as there are too many other imponderables.

 

[Ferminal]

They didnt beat everyone in the mountains? They dropped everyone on Peyresoudes. On PDBF they broke everyone but Evans who they cracked later. On the 1 or 2 mountain stages where others tried anything they never even managed to get a second. How do you see that as not dropping everyone?

They didn't beat a 2007 Contador = not special.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Point-of-fact: while he never came right out and said it, I got the distinct impression from Ed's scoffing tone, facial expression, etc., when discussing Armstrong's data that he (Ed) suspected Armstrong of doping. (This conversation took place when Ed first presented the data in poster form at a small scientific meeting in 2002.)

And YET, he was prepared to make a sworn statement that Armstrong did not need to dope to win all those Tours. ie he testified the complete opposite of what you just wrote, which makes a complete and utter mockery of your post.

Also, he chose to publish his paper AFTER the action was enjoined between SCA and Armstrong - so it was a paper of convenience most likely produced in an effort to aid Armstrong's defence.

Finally, despite your best efforts to paint your friend and mentor in the best possible light, let us once more bask in the literary prose that was the conclusion to Ed Coyle's study on the dopaholic, Armstrong:

Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade or more in a person who is truly inspired.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author (Ed Coyle) very much appreciates the respectful cooperation and positive attitude of Lance Armstrong over the years and through it all.

Nope. Nothing about doping in there. Man. I'm calling shenanigans on your post.

 

[acoggan]

And YET, he was prepared to make a sworn statement that Armstrong did not need to dope to win all those Tours. ie he testified the complete opposite of what you just wrote, which makes a complete and utter mockery of your post.

Also, he chose to publish his paper AFTER the action was enjoined between SCA and Armstrong - so it was a paper of convenience most likely produced in an effort to aid Armstrong's defence.

Finally, despite your best efforts to paint your friend and mentor in the best possible light, let us once more bask in the literary prose that was the conclusion to Ed Coyle's study on the dopaholic, Armstrong:



Nope. Nothing about doping in there. Man. I'm calling shenanigans on your post.

I'm just stating the facts. You could try contacting Dr. Jim Hagberg at the University of Maryland if you want to verify them.

 

[mastersracer]

I'm just stating the facts.

Isn't that against forum rules?

 

[acoggan]

Isn't that against forum rules?

Unfortunately for Dear Wiggo, I don't play by the forum's rules.

 

[sittingbison]

Badger quit in 1986.

You say doping has muddied every head of state and yet make the claim that Contador and Evans may be better cyclists then Hinault and Lemond. How does that make any sense? How can you possibly tell given you previous statement. Contador and Evans might have been doping from a young age.

I said "pretty much" all heads of state Pedro which is a fine distinction.

Indeed Bertie and Evans MAY have been doping from a young age. And Bertie HAS been found guilty of a doping offence. That doesn't alter my opinion that both have recorded the scientifically verifiable data so beloved of the "sports scientists" , plus a consistently excellent palmares, that MAY place them in the same category as Badger and LeMond.

Perhaps if you placed my statement in context be reading my previous five or six posts you will be less confused.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I said "pretty much" all heads of state Pedro which is a fine distinction.

Indeed Bertie and Evans MAY have been doping from a young age. And Bertie HAS been found guilty of a doping offence. That doesn't alter my opinion that both have recorded the scientifically verifiable data so beloved of the "sports scientists" , plus a consistently excellent palmares, that MAY place them in the same category as Badger and LeMond.

Perhaps if you placed my statement in context be reading my previous five or six posts you will be less confused.

Just because I disagree with you assertion does not mean I am 'confused'.

And funny how you are now using the scientific findings of 'sports scientists' to back it.

 

[sittingbison]

Just because I disagree with you assertion does not mean I am 'confused'.

And funny how you are now using the scientific findings of 'sports scientists' to back it.

Pedro, you didn't "disagree" with my assertions, you quoted it then deliberately misinterpreted it by ignoring the disclaimers.

And thete is nothing "funny" at including scientific data along with other information like palmares - and anecdotal observations like watching a race - its called a holistic approach.

And you also know i have used facts and figures in many threads to back my arguments, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Once again playing the man not the ball. Great.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Pedro, you didn't "disagree" with my assertions, you quoted it then deliberately misinterpreted it by ignoring the disclaimers.

So your disclaimer was 'pretty much every head of state'? Fine. My statement still stands. Given you cannot know whom was or was not doping it how can you compare say Froome or Contador. Both have the 'numbers' backing them up. Yet you pick Contador and Evans. What about Indurain or Ulrich?

And thete is nothing "funny" at including scientific data along with other information like palmares - and anecdotal observations like watching a race - its called a holistic approach.

And you also know i have used facts and figures in many threads to back my arguments, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Once again playing the man not the ball. Great.

It is funny because according to you none of these sports scientists have offered any indication of riders doping and then you quote said figures as an indication of doping.

Once again playing the man not the ball. Great.

A good analogy if we were talking about football but not so great when talking about cycling.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So you're saying that every scientist in the world, regardless of their field of expertise or current research endeavors, should drop what they're doing and focus their efforts on eliminating doping from the sport of cycling? Gotcha...

No, funny you should say that given your clearance attempts on LA apologist Coyle, but I guessed someone with your expertise on the physiological impossible would be interested in the physilogical possible. My bad.
Selling books is much more interesting.

Now we know you do not care who is riding where, on what speed on the mountains we can take take into account. Sorry to have bothered you.

 

[acoggan]

I guessed someone with your expertise on the physiological impossible would be interested in the physilogical possible.

Knowing how fast people ride up mountains doesn't tell you what is or isn't physiologically possible:

1) the imputed power outputs are too imprecise;

2) you don't know who is or isn't doping; and

3) there is always the possibility of a physiological outlier, i.e., someone whose genetic make-up allows them smash through any ceiling you previously thought existed even without doping.

Ergo, such data are useful only:

1) to coaches/riders who wish to know what they need to be able to do to be competitive; and

2) for engaging in pub debates comparing different generations of riders.

Neither of the latter two interest or involve me, so I don't waste my time performing such calculations.

 

[the sceptic]

Now you said speeds. Not placings. Speeds not placings.

Lets be clear here.

My argument is the speeds are not down. They may be for the bottom end of the field, I've not verified, only because racing is much different these days. One leader and 8 riders riding hard prior then coming in several minutes down.

However.

The Top 5. The Top 10 on climbs are climbing as fast if not faster than 1994-1998. They are also the same as 1999-2005. 2006 and 07 with 08 bring an anomaly until the riders worked out the passport and how to beat it.

The speeds are faster than the pre-Festina period. Fact.

I'd be happy for you to provide a link that they are slower? But you haven't.

Links per my claim?

Sure.

Average speed of the entire Tours year by year.

http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_tourdefrance_vitesse.htm


The tour is just as fast if not faster than Roche in 87 but to be fair they shortened the distance from 88 onwards. It's still much fast than those days.

Right though EPO-era the Tour hasn't slowed down by any stretch.

Notably "the Sky era" - 2011 onwards speeds are well and truly on the increase.



It should also be noted that about 10% more riders finish the Tour today than in 1996-2003.

Better recovery on doping products maybe?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/07/news/186088_186088





Further of note.

Number or Tour de France rider sanctioned at some point as follows:

34% of all group riders;
60% of 10-top ranked riders;
72% of 3-top ranked riders;
85% of all winners.

http://stats.areppim.com/archives/insight_dopingtour2908.htm

So to the climbs. What's interesting d'Huez aside 1994-1998 climbing times just don't appear anywhere. Average either.

Which tells you it's not fact at all.

There is no evidence that othe whole climbing times are down.

In fact it's too the contrary courtesy of Chris Froome.









Ax 3 Domains -

Expert Scientist Ross Tucker predicted the following:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and-performance-predictions/



And post stage, one minute faster. Yikes!



http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-first-mountain-performance-cue-debate/

Ax3 times are all the same as the rest.

I quoted this here since it was off topic in the other thread.

Nice work Hog.

 

[Ferminal]

In that case I look forward to Froome beating Riis' time on Hautacam.

 

[thehog]

In that case I look forward to Froome beating Riis' time on Hautacam.

What was Riis's time?

 

[Ferminal]

I don't know, jens will have it. It is one of the top3 performances of the 1990s for sure. But it's pretty simple, take an alien performance back then, restrict the flow of oxygen and performances will decrease. However, the impact of things like 50%/EPO/OoC testing/ABP may only be small at the top end (combined it is noticeable) but more dramatic in the performances of those further down the field. Pretty much every single rider was blood doping until 1997-2000. Whilst that changed with the 50% and EPO test, the best of the best never really stopped pushing the limits and looking for new ways to improve and it's these modern day equivalents of Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Armstrong who we should be looking at.

Today, the average rider who used a decent quantity of EPO in 1996 because it was completely "safe" to do so probably doesn't use anything at all, or uses very small amounts of EPO/Test and borderline stuff like cortisone. Those who used a lot back then may now use EPO to its limits in training but stay pretty "clean" in competition. The ones who went crazy trying to push their haematocrit to the sky, and when 50% came in worked out how to beat the check... they are the ones who are doing everything they can in training, and dropping blood and whatever else during the race (not to mention capturing regulators and corrupting the system) and it's only these who will ever get close (but not close enough) to matching the performance levels of the free EPO period.

Those who were most committed and resourceful enough were generally able to maintain most of their abilities in the wake of regulatory changes. For example, Pantani in 1998 post-50%, Armstrong post-EPO test. Additionally, if progress isn't continuous then once again they will rise up e.g. the Vuelta mutants, Basso, Landis, Contador, Rasmussen towards the end of that period.

 

[the sceptic]

Bjarne Riis is estimated to have produced 6.8W/kg (480W) on Hautacam when he won the Tour in 1996.

No chance Dawg beats that. Wild guess I would say he is somewhere behind Armstrongs and ahead of Cobo/Piepoli.