Climbing Speeds

[Parker]

220km vs 0km lead in.

You do the math.

Why don't you show me? Make sure you include the drafting for the first 30-40 minutes.

 

[Parker]

No

What about Pantani and Ullrich. Didnt try either?

They did try. But the wind wasn't condusive to fast times.

Do you really think that Pantani couldn't climb faster than Roman Kreuziger? (who did a faster time than Froome in 2009)

 

[the sceptic]

They did try. But the wind wasn't condusive to fast times.

Do you really think that Pantani couldn't climb faster than Roman Kreuziger? (who did a faster time than Froome in 2009)

-MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

There was definitely something weird going on in 2009. Old man Lance and Kreuziger shouldnt be this high up on the list.

A tailwind perhaps?

 

[Parker]

-MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)


There was definitely something weird going on in 2009. Old man Lance and Kreuziger shouldnt be this high up on the list.

A tailwind perhaps?

Wind is certainly a big factor on Ventoux. Do you think it isn't?

2009 was actually reported as a headwind though. Many at the time gave it as a reason why there was no attacking.

 

[the sceptic]

Wind is certainly a big factor on Ventoux. Do you think it isn't?

2009 was actually reported as a headwind though. Many at the time gave it as a reason why there was no attacking.

Headwind in 2009? But then how did old man Lance ride so well compared to his older times? Even bigger headwind in his other attempts?

 

[Parker]

Headwind in 2009? But then how did old man Lance ride so well compared to his older times? Even bigger headwind in his other attempts?

Perhaps. It's not called Ventoux for nothing, you know.

As for 2009. Here's what the live update said at the time:

13:43:34 CEST

On the Ventoux, we understand that winds of 110km/h have been recorded earlier today... It's going to be very tough for the riders - the sheltered section is early on during the climb, while the last few kilometres are exposed. Tactics are going to be crucial into what is expected to be a strong headwind.

And near the end:

16:21:43 CEST

The problem for Andy S. is that he has a 30km/h headwind now....he's going to find it hard to get rid of those on his wheel...


16:27:55 CEST

Schleck is facing a 41km/h headwind...he's doing himself no favours by sitting at the front and towing the others along.... This is frustrating to watch, he and Contador were the strongest but have been joined by those they dropped at the bottom. The tactical play has affected the racing at this point....

 

[thehog]

Perhaps. It's not called Ventoux for nothing, you know.

As for 2009. Here's what the live update said at the time:

13:43:34 CEST

On the Ventoux, we understand that winds of 110km/h have been recorded earlier today... It's going to be very tough for the riders - the sheltered section is early on during the climb, while the last few kilometres are exposed. Tactics are going to be crucial into what is expected to be a strong headwind.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[TheGame]

-MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)


There was definitely something weird going on in 2009. Old man Lance and Kreuziger shouldnt be this high up on the list.

A tailwind perhaps?

I think they resurfaced the road from the Bedoin side in 2005/2006.

I don't have the time to go looking back at pictures of the surface to comapre 2002 to 2009 but would be interesting to look at see if there was a noticeable difference.

I do wish people would use the same distance for the whole discussion. Some are using 15km, some using the full 22km

22km figures (via Wiki)
1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h

Without TT
1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h (Dauphine)
2. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
3. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
4. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
5. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
6. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
7. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
8. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
9. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
10. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
11. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h

But then when you use 15km completely different picture. Suddenly Lance is fastest and Froome second. How does that work?
1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Was certainly headwind in 2009 (for most of the exposed section) although my recollection is it dropped a bit in the afternoon. I was about 3 km from the top. Probably just as well the wind died down a little - there were forest fires which were threatening the route (BBQs were prohibited on the mountain)

 

[the sceptic]

But then when you use 15km completely different picture. Suddenly Lance is fastest and Froome second. How does that work?

Probably because the first 6km-ish are little more than a false flat, so its easier and better to compare from where the real climb starts.

 

[thehog]

Your without TT includes Mayo/Pantani ITT times.

Yes the 15km split is often used for the full climbing time. The long slow lead in can distort times.

The Dawg is right up there with the bad boys.

And so much for Pre-Festina days being faster!

I think they resurfaced the road from the Bedoin side in 2005/2006.

I don't have the time to go looking back at pictures of the surface to comapre 2002 to 2009 but would be interesting to look at see if there was a noticeable difference.

I do wish people would use the same distance for the whole discussion. Some are using 15km, some using the full 22km

22km figures (via Wiki)
1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h

Without TT
1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h (Dauphine)
2. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
3. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
4. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
5. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
6. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
7. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
8. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
9. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
10. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
11. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h

But then when you use 15km completely different picture. Suddenly Lance is fastest and Froome second. How does that work?
1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

 

[thehog]

I should add 2009 was a big dopers year.

JV was quoted in saying how doped that Tour was.

So for the Dawg to be up there clean is impressive.

But he had a tailwind

 

[martinvickers]

Your without TT includes Mayo/Pantani ITT times.

Yes the 15km split is often used for the full climbing time. The long slow lead in can distort times.

The Dawg is right up there with the bad boys.

And so much for Pre-Festina days being faster!

You do make me laugh, Hog.

Tell me, how many summit finishes at Ventoux did the Tour have during the 'pre-festina' years? Say from the start of the EPO era to Festina, roughly 1991-99? How many?

And while your about it - any links to that conference and 'real study' yet?

 

[sniper]

You do make me laugh, Hog.

Tell me, how many summit finishes at Ventoux did the Tour have during the 'pre-festina' years? Say from the start of the EPO era to Festina, roughly 1991-99? How many?

And while your about it - any links to that conference and 'real study' yet?

1st things 1st.
you claimed its a fact that average speeds have gone down, but unless i missed it u have not yet linked any factual evidence to that extent, am i right?

 

[thehog]

You do make me laugh, Hog.

Tell me, how many summit finishes at Ventoux did the Tour have during the 'pre-festina' years? Say from the start of the EPO era to Festina, roughly 1991-99? How many?

And while your about it - any links to that conference and 'real study' yet?

In still waiting for the "undeniable fact" link. You know like a study or something that drew you to this conclusion.

Be good to debate the source material.

Someone linked a Finnish web forum with mainly useless data.

So out with it.

Let's see this "undeniable fact" you've put on the table.

Why can't you just send the link? Or where your data came from?

Or maybe it doesn't actually exist?

 

[martinvickers]

1st things 1st.
you claimed its a fact that average speeds have gone down, but unless i missed it u have not yet linked any factual evidence to that extent, am i right?

No. Your wrong.

I cited the records kept by veetoo. Others have linked to the lists of those records online. they're there for all to see.

From those records can be extracted the top ten at the key mountain top finishes in the 2013 tour, and compare with the ten from other climbs in other eras. The top ten being the number Hog, not I, chose as a relevant marker.

I did that extraction. 2013 top tens, by referencing that tenth riders time were slower. Markedly so in the case of L'Alpe. Hog tried to obviscate that in a way that betrayed a pretty tenuous grip on basic math, but the numbers are there. Go check 'em out.

 

[martinvickers]

In still waiting for the "undeniable fact" link. You know like a study or something that drew you to this conclusion.

Be good to debate the source material.

You can't debate numbers, Hog. There's nothing to debate. Simply hard numbers. Undeniably numbers. Unless you are now claiming Veetoo is a liar or a fantasist.

Someone linked a Finnish web forum with mainly useless data.

Useless to those who can't read or count, perhaps. That's their problem.

Now Hog. That study. That conference. Now, please.

 

[thehog]

No. Your wrong.

I cited the records kept by veetoo. Others have linked to the lists of those records online. they're there for all to see.

From those records can be extracted the top ten over the key mountains in the 2013 tour, and compare with the ten from other climbs in other eras. The top ten being the number Hog, not I, chose as a relevant marker.

I did that extraction. 2013 top tens, by referencing that tenth riders time were slower. Markedly so in the case of L'Alpe. Hog tried to obviscate that in a way that betrayed a pretty tenuous grip on basic math, but the numbers are there. Go check 'em out.

I've not seen any data.

You've not linked it where you got it from.

You just said Veetoo.

So do us all a favour... Link the top 10 times from 2013 and then link the times from the other years.

I bet you can't.

I bet you won't.

Lets crunch some numbers, yes?

 

[martinvickers]

I've not seen any data.

You've not linked it where you got it from.

You just said Veetoo.

So do us all a favour... Link the top 10 times from 2013 and then link the times from the other years.

I bet you can't.

I bet you won't.

Lets crunch some numbers, yes?

They've already been linked by others. You clearly can't understand the basic numbers. The bizarre 200+ rider debacle proved that. Your problem, not mine.

Your turn, Hog. You've delayed, obviscated and misled long enough.

Study. Conference. Now.

 

[thehog]

They've already been linked by others. You clearly can't understand the basic numbers. The bizarre 200+ rider debacle proved that. Your problem, not mine.

Your turn, Hog. You've delayed, obviscated and misled long enough.

Study. Conference. Now.

Martin, it hasn't been linked.

I can only assume you made it up.

Because when you say:

AVERAGE climbing speeds are down from the Festina heights. That's a simple verifiable fact.

Surely if it was simple you'd have the data, yes?

I've given you my data which you refused to discuss.

Come on Martin.

Link time, lets have it.

 

[martinvickers]

Martin, it hasn't been linked.

I can only assume you made it up.

Because when you say:



Surely if it was simple you'd have the data, yes?

I've given you my data which you refused to discuss.

You gave a smattering of links to mostly irrelevant data, you provided no link to what you claimed.

Veetoo's date has been linked. You know that. You just don't understand it, or want to read it because there is finnish on the site. Your problem, not mine. The data is there, and it's been linked.

You have given no link to a study, which you claimed.

You have given no link to a conference, which you claimed.

You've exhausted whatever little credit you had on this.

Provide them. Now.

 

[thehog]

You gave a smattering of links to mostly irrelevant data, you provided no link to what you claimed.

Veetoo's date has been linked. You know that. You just don't understand it, or want to read it because there is finnish on the site. Your problem, not mine. The data is there, and it's been linked.

You have given no link to a study, which you claimed.

You have given no link to a conference, which you claimed.

You've exhausted whatever little credit you had on this.

Provide them. Now.

Martin. You made a statement that climbing times are down from pre-Festina.
You said it was simple and verifiable.

Ok. So if simple provide the data. Is it verifiable? Provide a link to where the data came from.

So what did you provide?

The following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers

Lets look at some of the summit finishes of 2013, then.

Alpe d'Huez. Top all time ascents per year according to vetooo

Leaving aside the winner of each stage/mountain argument. AS you said, top 10.

1994 Lino came 10th - which is also 80th all time - that means top 10 riders that year in top 80 of all time
1995 Jalabert came 10th - 55th All time - that means top 10 riders in 1995 all came in top 55
1997 Jalabert came 10th - 61st all time - that means top ten riders in 97 all in best 60 all time

So now 36 of top 80 filled by 'top ten riders' from those three years. Almost half of top 80 all time from those three years

Let's look at the later 2004 ish period

2004 10th Goubert - 48th all time
2006 10th Cadel Evans - 59th all time

To Those five years provide AT LEAST 60 'top ten' riders in top 80 of all time.

2013? Only 5 in top 200 all time. 5.

Only 2 in the top 90. 2.

In 1997, 10th is 55th all time
In 2004, 10th is 48th All time.

In 2013, 10th doesn't make top 200

No difference at all, Hog.

Now there may well be non performance reasons for this. Or there may not. But the 'top 10' times were slower. It's just a fact.


At Ax 3 Domains, fewer stats to use, but lets try.

in 2001, 10th got you 30th all time, in 2003 it got you 48th.
In 2013, it got you 66th, despite being the very first summit finish of the race. And of those, only 1 is in the top 20 of all time.

Only 2 in the top 30.

 

[the sceptic]

Martin. You made a statement that climbing times are down from pre-Festina.
You said it was simple and verifiable.

Ok. So if simple provide the data. Is it verifiable? Provide a link to where the data came from.

So what did you provide?

The following:

I am struggling to see how that post shows that the AVERAGE climbing speeds are down.

All it shows to me if I understand it correctly is that the 10th placed rider on alpe d'huez in 2013 was slower than in previous years.

That is not good enough. If you want to show it as a simple verifiable fact you need to show more data Martin.

No more delaying and obfuscating Martin.

more data. now.

 

[martinvickers]

I am struggling to see how that post shows that the AVERAGE climbing speeds are down.

All it shows to me if I understand it correctly is that the 10th placed rider on alpe d'huez in 2013 was slower than in previous years.

Word of Advice.

Your struggles aren't overly relevant to the discussion.

But for sh!ts and giggles, you might want to consider that AVERAGE and MEAN are not synonyms.

 

[thehog]

I am struggling to see how that post shows that the AVERAGE climbing speeds are down.

All it shows to me if I understand it correctly is that the 10th placed rider on alpe d'huez in 2013 was slower than in previous years.

That is not good enough. If you want to show it as a simple verifiable fact you need to show more data Martin.

No more delaying and obfuscating Martin.

more data. now.

I've got no idea either.

And to be honest I don't think he knows either. He tends to get terse when he really doesn't have the factual information to back up the statement. But that's not important right now.

Simple and verifiable should be just that... simple & verifiable.

So maybe... climbing speeds/averages are not so simple and verifiable from pre-Festina to present day?

I'm sure there is a study somewhere which might bring us closer to reality.

Perhaps? maybe? I think? Somewhere there is one? Which supports this theory....