LeMond: Ullrich is the best rider of his generation, he would have won every Tour

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

luis ocana had a 7 kg bike in the at the beginning of the 70's for christ sake. actually many blamed his crash/crashes because he rode such a light bike

Good post Jens.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17091&highlight=lemond

Herrera's bike 17lbs? not a chance.
Play it down all you like, it just highlights your ignorance.

Please, do some research on bikeweights Andy, than you wouldnt look like a stupid boy.

 

[andy1234]

Good post Jens.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17091&highlight=lemond

Please, do some research on bikeweights Andy, than you wouldnt look like a stupid boy.

This stupid boy actually rode both a Vitus carbon 9, with mavic groupset, and a TVT carbon with a C record groupset, as team bikes.

I know how much they weighed, and neither was below 20lbs.

How about your research?

You think Campag was concerned with weight when they created Delta brakes?

Maybe you can google yourself some experience hey?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This stupid boy actually rode both a Vitus carbon 9, with mavic groupset, and a TVT carbon with a C record groupset, as team bikes.

I know how much they weighed, and neither was below 20lbs.

How about your research?

You think Campag was concerned with weight when they created Delta brakes?

Maybe you can google yourself some experience hey?

Source Andy?

 

[stutue]

Source Andy?

Err.....reality?

 

[andy1234]

Source Andy?

Ask me any question you like about them......

Genuinely, weight was a secondary consideration in those days.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ask me any question you like about them......

Genuinely, weight was a secondary consideration in those days.

Again, Andy, give me a source for your carbon weight bike of 1987 or I will just have to assume my source is the better one.

Not nitpicking here, I am truly interested if I could be wrong, so endulge me here, cheers.

 

[andy1234]

Again, Andy, give me a source for your carbon weight bike of 1987 or I will just have to assume my source is the better one.

Not nitpicking here, I am truly interested if I could be wrong, so endulge me here, cheers.

What source could I provide exactly?

 

[Merckx index]

Here’s a very interesting article on bike weights. The author got them from a forum, which in turn got them from a book, Les Velos Mythiques Vainquers du Tour de France.

Bike weights hovered between 18 and 22 pounds from 1968 to 1998, after which they plummeted especially with Lance Armstrong demanding every technological advantage. In 2004, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) imposed a minimum weight requirement of 15.0 pounds (6.8 kilograms) for bicycles raced in international events under their jurisdiction—including the Tour de France—so the lightest bike ever ridden to overall Tour (faux-)victory was Armstrong’s Trek 5900 SL, weighing 14.5 pounds in 2003.

The article goes on to list the weight of the bike of the TDF winner from 1962-2013, though some of the years are missing. Lemond in 1986 and 1989 aren’t listed, but 1990 lists his bike’s weight at 20 lbs. That was a TT bike, but the weight is consistent with that listed for other years during that period, where no note of its being a TT bike is mentioned. E.g., Hinault in 1985, 21.1lbs., Indurain 1993, 22.7 lbs.

I have to say this gives some credence to JV's claim that pro cycling has been surprisingly slow to pay attention to some important details. Everyone knew that climbing rates depended critically on weight, but it took LA to realize that a much lighter bike could mean crucial seconds on a climb? That is a marginal gain I can believe in.

Using a power calculator, and assuming Lemond weighed 150 lbs (?), that difference would be about a minute.

Quite often you try to make interesting contributions to the forum (although I don't always share your views).

I am consequently appalled that you didn't do any research and put out this nonsense.

Quite often you make interesting contributions to this forum. I am consequently appalled that you didn’t even read the rest of the post you quoted, let alone the subsequent ones when I provided Lemond’s times for 1989-91. At least I had the excuse that when I made my initial post I was still in the process of trying to find better data. You couldn't even be bothered to read to the end of the thread before responding.

Comparing times year to year is crazy, all I have to do is point out that LeMond rode faster up Alpe d'Huez in 91 than Valverde or Schleck in 2008 to show how silly it is.

Schleck 41:34
Valverde 41:44
Lemond 41:42 (Wiki) or 42:25 (Jens)

And why does that prove that the comparison is crazy?

Remember, this is the best time Lemond ever recorded vs. one time pulled out of a hat for other riders.

 

[Le breton]

QUOTE=Merckx index;1455797]..... But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today.

I think it’s likely he could have done better, but probably not so much better that he would have been among the top climbers today. The best recorded time up ADH prior to the EPO era was about 42', with typical best times thought to be in the range of 43-45'. ....[/QUOTE]

Quite often you try to make interesting contributions to the forum (although I don't always share your views).

I am consequently appalled that you didn't do any research and put out this nonsense.

Would it be so difficult to look on cyclingnews forum to get the real figure?
In 1989, on a real bad day, LeMond was dropped by Fignon but still climbed AdH in 43:09.

In 1989 can you explain to me for what reason he and Hinault would have climbed any faster than 48' considering that 3rd place Zimmerman was not clawing back any time on them. The goal was to secure the 2nd place for Hinault.

In "La preuve par 21" published last year Portoleau-Vayer estimate that LeMond on AdH in 89 produced about 394 watts (against 354 watts in 86) on that bad losing day, but 415 watts on Superbagnères the same year, suggesting that on a good day - like Superbagnères - in 1989 he could have done AdH in just a bit above 41 minutes.
(Herrera did 41:50 in 1987).

 

[pmcg76]

My understanding is that Lemond rode a bike in the 1990 Worlds that weighed 18-19 lbs. When I bought my first racing bike in the mid 80s it was I think 20-21, and hardly the same as what the pros were using.

I think maybe 1.5 - 2 kgs is more like it. Which is not insignificant, it might add a minute to the time of a 65 kg rider. That still does not make Greg the best climber in today’s peloton. Maybe he’s more consistently top 10. And of course the weight is essentially irrelevant when it comes to time trialing, where we have previously discussed how times went way down in the beginning of the EPO era.

I don’t really disagree with you that a clean Lemond could compete today—I think that’s a testament to how good he was--my original point was and remains that we wouldn’t have any way of telling who he is. He would not stand out the way Greg did in his time, unless he was doping. So again, I ask you, just what do you mean when you say we should take this into account in judging today’s riders?

Do you mean that Froome could be today's Lemond? Beyond the fact that he doesn't have the history of being exceptional that Lemond and generally most great GC riders have had, he is still exhibiting performances that are beyond what a clean Lemond would do. Maybe he is even more naturally talented than Lemond, but again, the fact that this talent didn't show up until fairly recently suggests probably not. I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a Froome discussion, but his supporters sometimes seem to forget the knock on him is not so much that what he's doing is not possible clean, but not possible for someone with his particular history to do clean.

If all you mean is that it's possible for an exceptional rider to make a decent living in today's peloton while riding clean, I won't argue with you. But beyond that, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.

Comparing times year to year is crazy, all I have to do is point out that LeMond rode faster up Alpe d'Huez in 91 than Valverde or Schleck in 2008 to show how silly it is. Times do show general trends and it is clear there has been a slow down in speed since the height of the EPO era. Only 6 times from 2008/11/13 in the top 100 times, 5 of those were 2013.

On another note and this is something LeMond himself has said, the post shooting accident LeMond was never as good as the pre-shooting LeMond. So when people say 89/90/91 LeMond was at his best, that may not necessarily be true. To me the best LeMond was the mid-80s LeMond when he competed for everything.

 

[stutue]

luis ocana had a 7 kg bike in the at the beginning of the 70's for christ sake. actually many blamed his crash/crashes because he rode such a light bike

The Motobecane that he won the Tour on was about 8.5kg.(18.7lbs).

That was quite light.

It was mostly around the 20kg mark until Armstrong's Treks started going 15lbs and below, although Pantani's cracky Bianchis were pretty light at about 17lbs.

 

[Le breton]

Take 4kg off his bike and clothing, and you have a time that would challenge for the win in todays field.

In 1984 I owned a steel bike that was about 9 kg, possibly as much as 9.5, but for a mountain challenge I borrowed a carbon frame bicycle from the owner of my local Peugeot bike shop.
That was 1984 and the bike weighed 8 kg.

PS : I see that later on you came to your senses, sort of.

 

[red_flanders]

The article goes on to list the weight of the bike of the TDF winner from 1962-2013, though some of the years are missing. Lemond in 1986 and 1989 aren’t listed, but 1990 lists his bike’s weight at 20 lbs. That was a TT bike, but the weight is consistent with that listed for other years during that period, where no note of its being a TT bike is mentioned. E.g., Hinault in 1985, 21.1lbs., Indurain 1993, 22.7 lbs.

TT bikes are invariably heavier than race bikes.

The 1991 road bike that LeMond is pictured on is carbon, and while they are certainly lighter now, that bike was clearly not comparable to Indurain's steel bike. LeMond was a major equipment innovator, from tri-bars, double-drop bars, to glasses to carbon frames and more.

Probably worth noting that Indurain's bike isn't just steel vs. carbon, it's also a LOT bigger frame.

I'm surprised at the 22.7 lbs. number. He's about my size and as noted my steel frame at 60 cm with probably a comparable gruppo is 3.5 lbs lighter than what's quoted. Wheels matter, mine could be lighter. Not 3.5 pounds though.

 

[Le breton]

Quite often you make interesting contributions to this forum. I am consequently appalled that you didn’t even read the rest of the post you quoted, let alone the subsequent ones when I provided Lemond’s times for 1989-91. At least I had the excuse that when I made my initial post I was still in the process of trying to find better data. You couldn't even be bothered to read to the end of the thread before responding.

The way you phrased your assertion proves that you were not trying to find better data, just spreading wrong ones.
You are not excused.
Hard data in this day and age of the web acquire a life of their own, with much more power than just sentences as can be seen with the AdH watts/kg graph over the EPO years and a bit before that quotes 6.97 watts/kg for Armstrong in 2004.

This is also pointed out by the 39:44 climbing time for Bugno 1991 which Jens has been hard at work to correct to 40:27.

I acknowledge that you amended yourself
In 1991, Bugno won with a time of 39:44, according to Wiki, but 40:27 according to Jens. Lemond was 1:58 behind, so assuming they started the climb together (?), he did it in 41:42 (Wiki) or 42:25 (Jens)

 

[Franklin]

First off, the necccessary disclaimer: I said I have no reason to think Greg dopes (indeed many, many reasons to think he didn't), so why that's brought up is quite the kneejerk reaction.

However, I do strongly disagree with the myth that Lemond was publicly outspoken against doping as a rider. That just doesn't jive with the facts.

Just because you didn't remember reading it in Winning magazine does not mean it did not happen.

I'm from a European country with a lot more coverage of cycling... and a lot more year-round Lemond interviews than an USA fan ever could dream of reading. Doping was a non-subject just as from any other racer. Greg was part of the Omerta. And yeah, Doping was a hot subject in those years with high profile cases abundant, so it was not the press not being interested.

In fact the interview posted shows Gregs stance:

1. He bashes PDM (rightly so).
2. But he does not mention the widespread Hormone usage at Gitane.

Clearly what PDM did went too far for him (being almost force-fed!), but it's pretty obvious that he thought that more voluntary/private doping itself was no reason to be called upon even though he himself most likely was clean. Added to keep away those knees. He was good friends with dopers and quacks and even now has not turned against them.

And yeah, I think that's a fine stance. IT'S OKAY. Life goes on.

Every rider on La Vie Claire was clean, that was Paul Keochli's big deal to make sure he had a clean team.

And this is why Lemond, clean as he might be is not the expert some here think he is.

Kim Andersen (!!!!)

And then we have to believe that the following three turned saints:

Bernard Vallet.
Bernard Hinault.
Christian Jourdan

I like Greg's attitude, the guy clearly has a story people need to hear, but his opinion on cycling isn't always that insightful (though it often is).

Back to Greg on Ullrich... he hasn't raced him and quite frankly hasn't got a clue how doped everyone was or wasn't and how that would pan out if everyone was clean. That's not bashing him... NOBODY knows how that would pan out. It's just an opinion of one of the best cyclists in the world. Very noteworthy, but it's impossible to gauge.

Many, me included, have the same opinion as Greg that Jan was intrinsically extremely talented, but sadly we will never know if it was just jet fuel or genuine.

 

[red_flanders]

First off, the necccessary disclaimer: I said I have no reason to think Greg dopes (indeed many, many reasons to think he didn't), so why that's brought up is quite the kneejerk reaction.

However, I do strongly disagree with the myth that Lemond was publicly outspoken against doping as a rider. That just doesn't jive with the facts.


I'm from a European country with a lot more coverage of cycling... and a lot more year-round Lemond interviews than an USA fan ever could dream of reading. Doping was a non-subject just as from any other racer. Greg was part of the Omerta. And yeah, Doping was a hot subject in those years with high profile cases abundant, so it was not the press not being interested.

In fact the interview posted shows Gregs stance:

1. He bashes PDM (rightly so).
2. But he does not mention the widespread Hormone usage at Gitane.

Clearly what PDM did went too far for him (being almost force-fed!), but it's pretty obvious that he thought that more voluntary/private doping itself was no reason to be called upon even though he himself most likely was clean. Added to keep away those knees. He was good friends with dopers and quacks and even now has not turned against them.

And yeah, I think that's a fine stance. IT'S OKAY. Life goes on.



And this is why Lemond, clean as he might be is not the expert some here think he is.

Kim Andersen (!!!!)

And then we have to believe that the following three turned saints:

Bernard Vallet.
Bernard Hinault.
Christian Jourdan

I like Greg's attitude, the guy clearly has a story people need to hear, but his opinion on cycling isn't always that insightful (though it often is).

Back to Greg on Ullrich... he hasn't raced him and quite frankly hasn't got a clue how doped everyone was or wasn't and how that would pan out if everyone was clean. That's not bashing him... NOBODY knows how that would pan out. It's just an opinion of one of the best cyclists in the world. Very noteworthy, but it's impossible to gauge.

Many, me included, have the same opinion as Greg that Jan was intrinsically extremely talented, but sadly we will never know if it was just jet fuel or genuine.

Nice to see some informed posting here. I think this is all fairly accurate.

 

[kingjr]

Nice to see some informed posting here. I think this is all fairly accurate.

I second that.

 

[Race Radio]

However, I do strongly disagree with the myth that Lemond was publicly outspoken against doping as a rider. That just doesn't jive with the facts.


I'm from a European country with a lot more coverage of cycling... and a lot more year-round Lemond interviews than an USA fan ever could dream of reading. Doping was a non-subject just as from any other racer. Greg was part of the Omerta. And yeah, Doping was a hot subject in those years with high profile cases abundant, so it was not the press not being interested.

That's nice.....I am American who left the country when I was 9 and was raised in several European countries. Please save me the "Uniformed American" pandering.

I have been very closely following the topic of doping in sport for decades, over 30 years. I am well aware of what was being discussed. I also know many of the people that you have just seen in magazine. Perhaps Greg could have rocked the boat a bit more with the Euro press but I know for a fact that he was vocally against doping to his teammates, staff, management, etc. That is not just Greg telling me that but the riders he rode with, the staff he worked with and a wide range of folks close to him

Greg is off with la Vie Claire but he is correct when he talks about how how Paul hated doping and was convinced that riders did not need it. In many respects Paul was correct.....until EPO came along

Greg calling out PDM was huge. How many times did a Pro, let alone the Tour de France Champion, even mention doping in the 80's? Seldom if ever......except to complain about testing

 

[red_flanders]

I think both of you are spot on. I see no conflict in the thoughts posted.

I don't recall anyone being terribly public in those days.

 

[Merckx index]

The way you phrased your assertion proves that you were not trying to find better data, just spreading wrong ones.
You are not excused.

I followed that statement with:

I think it’s likely he could have done better, but probably not so much better that he would have been among the top climbers today.

A statement that still appears to be correct in light of the data I found subsequently, depending on how one defines "top" and how much his bike actually did weigh. Also note that I said "probably". I didn't assert this as fact or certainty.

I love the way all these experts who know every single one of every rider’s times on every stage in every GT for the past century come crawling out of the woodwork when someone makes an honest mistake in posting, not because he was making up data, but because he was using a source that he thought was reliable, but none of these experts can be bothered to correct that source. Like, why hasn’t someone told Wiki that their data are wrong or incomplete?

If Wiki made an egregious error that I knew was an error, I sure would correct them. I also would point this out in the Clinic, without needing someone’s incorrect post to prompt me. But all these Clinic experts let the Wiki page on Alpe stand just as it is. And then they complain when someone using it as a source is wrong, and accuse him of not trying to find better data. How is someone supposed to know there are better data? Most of the data there appear to be correct. Someone is supposed to know that dozens of times listed there are correct, but a few aren’t, or that there are some other times missing?

I don't mind being corrected, I already thanked Tyler's Twin for pointing out the mistake. I do object to having people assume motives for the mistake that they have no way of knowing are the case.

 

[D-Queued]

Am a little late to the bike weight discussion. BUT, I can advise with a high degree of certainty that LeMond's bike was pretty close to 18 lbs, including his Time pedals but without bidons or cages. Very heavy by today's standards, but light at the time.

One of the biggest weight improvements was the move to carbon cranks. Brakes are much lighter than what he was riding and he rode a heavier seat.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

LeMond is right about Ullrich. Won the Commonwealth Bank Cycle Classic at 19. All class, all power. Just a pity cycling became doped filled because he would have won every event going.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/young-ullrich-remembered

 

[Race Radio]

I think both of you are spot on. I see no conflict in the thoughts posted.

I don't recall anyone being terribly public in those days.

Compared to today we were in the dark ages back then for anything about the sport. France had a few magazines. Italy, Belgium, too. Spain was a joke. They barely had it on TV. Nothing like what we have today. When Theunisse tested posistve in 1988 he tried to punch Köchli when Paul laughed at him for getting popped. These days that would have been big news, back then hardly a mention.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Am a little late to the bike weight discussion. BUT, I can advise with a high degree of certainty that LeMond's bike was pretty close to 18 lbs, including his Time pedals but without bidons or cages. Very heavy by today's standards, but light at the time.

One of the biggest weight improvements was the move to carbon cranks. Brakes are much lighter than what he was riding and he rode a heavier seat.

Dave.

I think below that is possible with steel. My 52 cm colnago technos with dura ace was 18 lbs.

The whole new low bike weight thing I think is kind of bunk. You only get marginal gains. 3 lbs, bike on 150 lbs ,bike and rider, is only 2% and so if you were going straight up at the same power output you would be going 2% faster. 2% gain on the alpe de heuz would only be about 45-50 seconds. But it wouldn't even be that much because it isn't a straight up climb. So, maybe it only makes a 20 second difference. Equipment only bring marginal gains. The way that Froome rode last year at the TDF, he could have won mountain stage easily on a good steel frame or even an old aluminum frame.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

LeMond is right about Ullrich. Won the Commonwealth Bank Cycle Classic at 19. All class, all power. Just a pity cycling became doped filled because he would have won every event going.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/young-ullrich-remembered

Yea, much better than anatomy jock race, i suppose.