The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Calling experienced pro and classics riders "kermesse"?
Wow. I'm under no illusions about PEDs, but this really makes me want to completely tune out of even checking highlights and results.
I completely agree! It seems like the newer fans to road cycling who are a bit younger either have no clue about PEDs or just don't care. It's weird to me as someone who has been pretty tuned in to road racing since ~2005.
I overstated my case, because there was a strong tailwind, Sunday. However, those guys are setting the fastest time, every time, and the pack fodder are many times, still ahead of the fastes previous time. It's wild.
They have a clue...they just don't care. It's like with "Big 4" in the U.S. (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL), people just turn a blind eye.
I did not call them a set of kermesse racers, that was the post I replied to. And I actually defended kermesse racers as pretty hardcore.
Cx and TT might look somewhat similar on heart rate, but his efforts in Cx are entirely different than the types of TT's he has put together this year with respect to power and physiology.
Do we know the wind direction and speed at PR these years? 2010, 2012 and 2024? We know this year had a strong tailwind. Pretty sure they were doping to some degree in 2010 and 2012. I think wind and tech (wider tyres and aero) rather than simply doping is a better explanation.
Who would have thunk a team like SQS would be nowhere in the classics a few years ago?
It was me that mentioned kermesse riders which was actually a tongue in cheek quote from the Lantern Rouge pod, but he's not wrong. Those three guys that blew it apart at 150km are currently ranked 168, 685, and 815th. Their average salary is probably less than 90% of the riders they dropped. To be fair, Kielich does look to be a genuine talent.
They all have come up riding these races and riding together with Alpecin + MVDP for 4-5 years now. Most of them around 30 and have many years of training, races and gained the endurance + experience. Not taking account for other things, because we dont know. It is just speculation and guesswork.
maybe not in the bigger races, but very early in his road career he already had some longe race attacks that stuck. Binck Banck comes to mind with 70k to go, dropping the last guy with 50k to go and solo from there, to win. And a day later he finished 6th in LBL.
tme to check of the covid vaccines didnt accidentally contain superhuman DNA lol
Yes, thank you for pointing out his other intermittent suspicious performances.
I think we're just going to disagree on whether it was eyebrow raising or not that they were as dominant as they were. And that, of course, is totally okay. But just to be clear, I'm not claiming they're a bunch of donkeys, but I do find their collective performances to be "exaggerated" compared to where they were up to last year. 😉
No problem. As I said, I am not vouching for any rider or team to be "clean"... but I also wouldnt underestimate that their focus and hard work over the years also be paying off. Especially, compared to other teams. Most of their core for these races have raced with each other a lot. They have the best leader in MVDP and they ride with confidence. It is just as much a physchological thing as it is a physical one, imo, that could explain their very good performances.... which they have have been doing for a few years winning races. Not just this season.
I wrote it before - but no way that prime Boonen or Cancellara put in this year's edition would finish OTL.
Yes I think there are always odd outliers produced by race circumstances, tactics, weather conditions, so single data points and the odd warp-speed race alone can indicate whatever you want it to, it proves nothing. The problem is that the graph above isn't some sort of outlier or fluke, you plot the speed of pretty much every big classic and Grand Tour in the past 4 years and it will show the same thing.I wrote it before - but no way that prime Boonen or Cancellara put in this year's edition would finish OTL.
Roubaix is just a race where average speeds are extremely volatile and depend on a multitude of factors. I generally see the uptake in speed as well across races but in the very specific case, its just also very selectively taken data points.
Or do we also think:
Cancellara would have finished the 1948 edition OTL - because thats what the data would indicate (without me knowing the 1948 course. But just as illustrative point - the edition that year was also 4+ km/h faster than 1947 and 1949)?
Yea we're talking 10s of watts at 50km/h. Maybe even 50w between frame, wheels, clothing, and rolling resistance.
I am not discounting at all that its a pattern and we see a trend of extremely high race speeds. But I am surprised that "Moto Cancellara would finish OTL today" is seen as a serious argument that led to 3 pages of discussion. Yes, this edition had an avg. speed of 39 km/h only but not because Cancellara was not capable of more in any circumstances but obviously other factors as well. How else would you explain next year he did over 42km/h (and still lost to Vansummeren)? Or 2013 he did 44 km/h? Same Cancellara, right? So, thats just a weak argument by selectively picking data. Showing patterns and trends is a better way of making a point. Or conceptually - I also think climbing times make a way better comparison (still with weaknesses) than Paris - Roubaix, considering the enormous fluctuations.Reasonable people will agree that one data point is not conclusive, unless it is really off the charts. But that is exactly what the apologists do; they focus on single data points and explain them with the usual nonsense: a once-in-a-generation talent (all six of them), marginal gains, weak competition, the weather, and so forth. As if we are all idiots who have no awareness of those things and they are here to enlighten us.
All of these wiseguys ignore the context:
1. It's not an anomaly, it's a pattern. Whether it's about climbing times or average speeds, records are being broken left, right, and centre.
2. This increase in the level of performance did not happen gradually, it was an abrupt change that occurred around 2020. This is well-documented on this forum, for example here: https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threads/power-data-estimates-for-the-climbing-stages.8839/page-138
3. Along with the increase in speed, we also saw a remarkable change in the nature of performances:
- The era of specialisation is over; we suddenly see riders who excel at every kind of terrain and discipline, winning combinations of races that were previously thought to be practically impossible to win.
- These same riders also experience almost no changes in form; they are able to perform at an exceptional level the whole year around.
- They are able to do these things while riding a lot faster than the previous generation, breaking record after record.
- All of the elite riders excel at time trialling, regardless of body type. Races are now frequently won through incredible individual efforts.
4. Despite the large increase in the general standard of performance, we suddenly see extremely young riders, even teenagers, win major races.
5. All of this began to manifest itself at the exact same time.
Any proposed reason for what is happening must be able to explain all of those things.
As for the graphic, we can see that the average speed in fact gradually became less volatile. We can also see that it was stable from 2012 to 2019. There was no race in 2020, and in 2021 we had the first rainy edition in a long time, which suppressed the speed. The massive increase in the level of performance since 2020 should be obvious to anyone but the blind and cannot be explained by "marginal gains".
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram