Climbing Speeds

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
the sceptic said:
I guess the jury is still out on climbing speeds.

What about time trials? my gut feeling tells me they arent going any slower now than in the 90s
Well I think the jury didn't even need to go out for deliberation.

There is no verifiable evidence the speeds are down.

The statement that they are sounds nice and looks good on a PowerPoint slide.

But speeds are not down. Or there's no evidence to suggest they are.

To your most recent point; I brought this up in my first post before I was harassed and chastised, that an interesting study would be climbing speeds and TT speeds combined, compared from today to the dark era.

My feeling and its only a suspicion right now that there is a subset of riders whom can climb exceptionally well and produce phenomenal power in ITT.

I point towards Armstrong and Contador (09) as examples of this phenomenon.

And in present day Froome/Wiggins as climber/ITT'er.

If one was attempting to predict doping I think you might find a correlation between the two disciplines with the performances and power outputs.

It's only a theory, I could be wrong but I will look further into it over time.

Vayer goes into this a little with his study but believe it needs more research.

Good question though! Thanks! :cool:
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
martinvickers said:
I haven't checked - i suspect it's hard to find identical time trials for 'simplified' comparisons, so there will usually be distinct variables that make a simple cross-comparison very difficult - I'm happy to hear otherwise, of course.

Purely on 'gut', the relatively limited TT performances of Quintana and Purito on the flat, while still podiuming the 2013 Tour gives some limited hope, but its by no means a calculation.
Thats true, the course and wind variables would make it difficult to compare from year to year. But there are some time trials that are pretty similar over the years, the worlds and the last one in the tour.

Maybe it would be pointless to try and compare the average speeds, I dont know.

I agree that there are fewer climbers turned into TTers these days. In the 90s it was "normal" for riders like Pantani and Heras to almost win flat ITTs. I guess Froome is the only one that can do this now.

However I do think the likes of Martin, Cancellara, Wiggins, Froome their average speeds dont seem to be much slower than say, Armstrong but this is just an unscientific guess on my part, would like to hear what others think.
 
the sceptic said:
I guess the jury is still out on climbing speeds.

What about time trials? my gut feeling tells me they arent going any slower now than in the 90s
Comparing time trial speeds is worse than comparing climbing times. The course is rarely the same and there have been huge advances in bike aerodynamics since the 90s.

There's a huge difference between this


and this



Just as there is a difference between this


and this
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Parker said:
Comparing time trial speeds is worse than comparing climbing times. The course is rarely the same and there have been huge advances in bike aerodynamics since the 90s.
Interesting theory. Do you have any links or sources to back up that claim?

Did they not have wind tunnels in the 90s? Where do the advancements come from? link? sources?

Didnt Sir Chris Froome get an olympics bronze medal without ever being in a wind tunnel?

We need more than a couple of pictures before making definite conclusions on whether riders are more aerodynamic now than they were in the 90s.

So if you have anything else I would be delighted to learn more.
 
the sceptic said:
Interesting theory. Do you have any links or sources to back up that claim?

Did they not have wind tunnels in the 90s? Where do the advancements come from? link? sources?

Didnt Sir Chris Froome get an olympics bronze medal without ever being in a wind tunnel?

We need more than a couple of pictures before making definite conclusions on whether riders are more aerodynamic now than they were in the 90s.

So if you have anything else I would be delighted to learn more.
The joke is on Parker here.

Whilst their has been advancement on bikes the UCI changed the rules not allowing low profile or outstretched arms - praying mantas - positions and that the bike had to be commonly available.

For example Indurian's super bike is far faster than the TT bikes of today.

F1 is much the same. The cars have been slowed down to force more overtaking and closer field.

Nevertheless there are variables. But drafting is removed along with lead in stage distance to the climb.

For me it's a worthy analysis to be conducted.

ie Froome and Wiggins additional power from previous years in ITTs.

Contador comes to mind in '09 - Paris-Nice & Tour.



 
the sceptic said:
Interesting theory. Do you have any links or sources to back up that claim?

Did they not have wind tunnels in the 90s? Where do the advancements come from? link? sources?
I don't need links. Technology does not go backwards. No-one says 'this is good, lets make it worse'.
 
Netserk said:
Sometimes UCI does...
Correct.

The bicycle must be accessible to all participants. It must be marketed (i.e. available for sale on the market) or marketable (i.e. available for sale directly from the manufacturer, by subscription or through an alterna- tive distribution network). Prototypes and the use of equipment specially designed for a particular athlete, event or performance is prohibited. “Special design” means a bicycle with a technical added value when compared with other equipment.

The bicycle must be designed and constructed to the highest professional standards in accordance with offi- cial quality and safety criteria in a manner that respects the UCI’s Technical Regulations, allowing the rider to adopt, without difficulty or risk, the required positions (support points, tip of saddle behind bottom bracket, position of hands on the handlebars, overall rider position)
UCI Regulations: Part 1, General Regulations under Section 1.3.
 
Netserk said:
Sometimes UCI does...
Yeah, they banned Obree's ideas. But many 90s bikes are still legal. Remember that aerobars didn't even arrive until 1989. Of course advances have been made.

It seems that there are some people on here that think that sports science and aerodynamics are the only areas of science that have stood still since the 80s.
 
Parker said:
Yeah, they banned Obree's ideas. But many 90s bikes are still legal. Remember that aerobars didn't even arrive until 1989. Of course advances have been made.

It seems that there are some people on here that think that sports science and aerodynamics are the only areas of science that have stood still since the 80s.
80s maybe but they slowed them down. Significantly.

Cycling Time Trials' regulation 14(h), which prohibits "wind breaks or other means of reducing air resistance"
 
thehog said:
80s maybe but they slowed them down. Significantly.
So why aren't they riding bikes just like in the olden days?

Look - you fanatics are getting away from the point. TT times can't be compared if riders are riding radically different bikes. Regardless of what your bias is.

Now if you want to claim that era of the dial up modem, the laserdisc and the Nokia 5110 is the best humanity will ever reach then good luck to you
 
Parker said:
So why aren't they riding bikes just like in the olden days?

Look - you fanatics are getting away from the point. TT times can't be compared if riders are riding radically different bikes. Regardless of what your bias is.

Now if you want to claim that era of the dial up modem, the laserdisc and the Nokia 5110 is the best humanity will ever reach then good luck to you
You're a bit silly aren't you.

Nothing wrong with making the comparison.

You just need to list the variables as you do when you compare climbs.

That's why those predicting global warming compare weather patterns through the ages.

Measuring devices get better, the world changes, significantly, however the comparisons are very important as are the results along with knowing the variables and limitations of the study.

Now stop trying to close down discussions. It's stupid.
 
thehog said:
You're a bit silly aren't you.

Nothing wrong with making the comparison.

You just need to list the variables as you do when you compare climbs.

That's why those predicting global warming compare weather patterns through the ages.

Measuring devices get better, the world changes, significantly, however the comparisons are very important as are the results along with knowing the variables and limitations of the study.

Now stop trying to close down discussions. It's stupid.
No, you and your kith will just present the raw times. As you always do.

No reference to context. Bikes are the same. Race situations are the same. Conditions are the same. Variations are irrelevant. Until the data doesn't say what you want it to, and then the context flows in.

But anyway - the fastest non-prologue TT in any Tour de France is by Greg LeMond in 1989. If we take away all context as you all like to do, he's surely a doper.
 
Parker said:
Comparing time trial speeds is worse than comparing climbing times. The course is rarely the same and there have been huge advances in bike aerodynamics since the 90s.

There's a huge difference between this


and this

What about Froome who won Bronze medal in the olympic time trial without ever having seen the inside of a windtunnel:rolleyes:
 
The Hitch said:
What about Froome who won Bronze medal in the olympic time trial without ever having seen the inside of a windtunnel:rolleyes:
So you don't think Pinarello or Sky have computer modelling? I see the luddites are still clinging to the wind tunnel - sure that tells you something but its not the only solution. Most testing is done on computers these days.

Of course you're stuck in the 90s won't understand that.

Regardless of what you entrenched position is - you must recognise that the bikes are different and that they make a difference.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Parker said:
No, you and your kith will just present the raw times. As you always do.

No reference to context. Bikes are the same. Race situations are the same. Conditions are the same. Variations are irrelevant. Until the data doesn't say what you want it to, and then the context flows in.

But anyway - the fastest non-prologue TT in any Tour de France is by Greg LeMond in 1989. If we take away all context as you all like to do, he's surely a doper.
Ball not man Parker. Who said anything about removing all context?

You said there have been huge advancements in aerodynamics since the 90s. Do you have any studies to back that up? When did riders start using wind tunnels? If science is so important today how could Froome be the 3rd best ITTer in the world without ever using one?

What about Armstrong, did he also suffer from being stuck in the stone age or did he have access to modern science?
 
the sceptic said:
Ball not man Parker. Who said anything about removing all context?

You said there have been huge advancements in aerodynamics since the 90s. Do you have any studies to back that up? When did riders start using wind tunnels? If science is so important today how could Froome be the 3rd best ITTer in the world without ever using one?

What about Armstrong, did he also suffer from being stuck in the stone age or did he have access to modern science?

Ok.

Basic yes or no question.

Do you think that bike designs from the last 20 years have had any impatct on time trial speeds?
 
Parker said:
So you don't think Pinarello or Sky have computer modelling? I see the luddites are still clinging to the wind tunnel - sure that tells you something but its not the only solution. Most testing is done on computers these days.

Of course you're stuck in the 90s won't understand that.

Regardless of what you entrenched position is - you must recognise that the bikes are different and that they make a difference.
Official Sky PR hack william fotheringam disagrees with you

The fruits of Froome's work in a wind tunnel could be seen in his time-trial success and in the bursts of speed on the climbs that won him the race
 
The argument of aerodynamics is a double-edged sword. Yes, advances must have happened, but on the other hand, the most aerodynamic TT bikes of the mid 90s were banned, which undid a lot of the progress.

You can't see this on the road anymore:
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Parker said:
Ok.

Basic yes or no question.

Do you think that bike designs from the last 20 years have had any impatct on time trial speeds?
My opinion isnt relevant to the discussion. Dont stall and obfuscate Parker.

You made the claim that there has been huge advancements in bike aerodynamics since the 90s. Do you mind explaining this a bit more and provide a link or a source?

How much of an increase in speed can a rider expect due to this improved technology? any studies or links?

Do you expect that in the future, bike science will make it possible for clean riders to time trial faster than Indurain?

How can someone that hasnt even been in a wind tunnel be competitive against riders that take science more seriously?

Try to stick to the topic Parker. You made the claim that bike aerodynamics have made huge advancements since the 90s. Its time to back it up with more than a couple of pictures.
 
Parker said:
No, you and your kith will just present the raw times. As you always do.

No reference to context. Bikes are the same. Race situations are the same. Conditions are the same. Variations are irrelevant. Until the data doesn't say what you want it to, and then the context flows in.

But anyway - the fastest non-prologue TT in any Tour de France is by Greg LeMond in 1989. If we take away all context as you all like to do, he's surely a doper.
Don't be silly. Again. Now you're in crazy man land with no where to turn.

I love data analysis.

It's overused but its worthy in all contexts.

You see when you pair observation with data you get closer to reality.

Your LeMond example is good. It used to get trotted out by Armstrong fanboys as look at Greg he had the fastest TT of all time. Failing to mention it was also the shortest along with being out and back. Context.

Froome on Ax3. When we saw him obliterate the completion then we turned to the data. The data said 3rd fastest of all time. That tells you are story. Context.

Now if the entire field was 1 second behind Froome and he still rode 3rd fastest, you'd say something else is at play here.

If he rode 49th fastest of all time and killed the opposition then you would look at the opposition not Froome. Again context.

I don't pick out data and say look Froome is a doper. I look at him the rider and where he has come from, his former results, look at his performances then the data and say, "doper".

If Froome was Armstrong and winning senior world titles at 21 I might believe in him more. If he showed any semblance of a GT rider before he when full genius I might have an inkling he is the real deal.

Data + performances + observation equals an astute and sound result.

Ventoux and its alleged tailwind had many giving Froome a pass. For me the 220km lead in and even if there was 100% tailwind what he did by observation doesn't give him a pass.

Accelerations and slaughtering the opposition tells you that.

Now throw in the sports past with drugs where by 87% of former winners have drug clouds and that data tells you what to expect from Froome.

:)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
How much does the bike play a part in the aerodynamics for a ride + bike system? Pretty sure the rider takes up 80-90% of the drag component, and bike itself is < 10%.

Here's some actual numbers, either measured or calculated. In my opinion it says the whole "bike improvement explains increase in speed" BS is just that: BS.

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/CyclingAerodynamics.aspx

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts