Stage 16: Pinzolo – Aprica 177 kms: Clinic version

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
irondan said:
SeriousSam said:
If Contador outclimbed Pantani, I'm going to start having doubts he's on pan y agua. But until such time, let us marvel at the credible climbing at display here.
From http://www.climbing-records.com
Contador, the fastest time on Mortirolo 2015

Mortirolo
2015:11,7 km km@11,1%---45:16---average speed 15.54 km/h(Alberto Contador)
2010:11,7 km km@11,1%---44:39---average speed 15.72 km/h(Basso-Nibali-Scarponi)
---45:34---average speed 15.41 km/h(Alexandre Vinokourov)
---45:58---average speed 15.27 km/h(Sastre-Gadret)
---46:21---average speed 15.15 km/h(Cadel Evans)
---46:34---average speed 15.08 km/h(David Arroyo)
2008:11,7 km km@11,1%---46:12---average speed 15.19 km/h(Sella-Ricco-Contador-Rodriguez-Pozzovivo-Menchov-Simoni)
---46:37---average speed 15.06 km/h(Bruseghin-Van Den Broeck)
---47:06---average speed 14.90 km/h(Pellizotti-Valjavec)
---47:36---average speed 14.75 km/h(Danilo Di Luca)
2006:11,7 km km@11,1%---44:32---average speed 15.76 km/h(Basso-Simoni)(source: Frederic Portoleau)
---45:40---average speed 15.37 km/h(Jose Enrique Gutierrez)
---45:42---average speed 15.36 km/h(Damiano Cunego)
---46:20---average speed 15.15 km/h(Leonardo Piepoli)
---48:14---average speed 14.55 km/h(Savoldelli-G.Caruso-Garate-Casar)
2004:11,7 km km@11,1%---47:30---average speed 14.78 km/h(Simoni-Garzelli-Valjavec) (source: Frederic Portoleau)
---48:15---average speed 14.55 km/h(Cunego-10 riders group)
1999:11,7 km km@11,1%---41:42---average speed 16.83 km/h(Gotti-Heras-Simoni)-RECORD
---43:03---average speed 16.31 km/h(Niklas Axelsson)
---43:56---average speed 15.98 km/h(Codol-De Paoli)
---43:59---average speed 15.96 km/h(Laurent Jalabert)
---44:34---average speed 15.75 km/h(Honchar-Camenzind-Mason)
---44:45---average speed 15.69 km/h(Savoldelli-Virenque)
1997:11,7 km km@11,1%---45:13---average speed 15.53 km/h(Belli-Gotti-Tonkov)
---46:19---average speed 15.16 km/h(Miceli-Noe)
1996:11,7 km km@11,1%---42:07---average speed 16.67 km/h(Gotti-Tonkov)
---42:45---average speed 16.43 km/h(Ugrumov-Zaina)
---44:29---average speed 15.78 km/h(Abraham Olano)
1994:11,7 km km@11,1%---42:40---average speed 16.45 km/h(Marco Pantani)
---43:33---average speed 16.12 km/h(Miguel Indurain)
---44:21---average speed 15.83 km/h(Evgeni Berzin)
---45:07---average speed 15.56 km/h(Nelson Rodriguez)
---45:12---average speed 15.53 km/h(Pavel Tonkov)
Thanks.

I couldn't help it but to laugh at the 1996, 1994 times. 3 minutes faster???? How is that even possible?
There seems to be a lot of variation not due to strength. Take Gotti, the record holder with an unbelievable 41:42 in 99. in 96 it was 42:07. But in 97 he was also the quickest but his time was the same as Contador's, 45:13.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
In 97 they attacked from ridiculously far out. They were exhausted by the Mortirolo.
Contador has said he was doing 400W / 180bpm for 20 minutes before the climb.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
It's true that the field is not particularly strong, and it's true that the watt figures aren't necessarily that impressive. However, let's not forget what Dekker_Tifosi hinted at and what red flanders said: that the pace in this race has been absolutely murderous from the very beginning. It's been a ridiculously hard GT so far, and that naturally should have an impact both on the W/kg figures but also on the kind of rider who can end up near the front. Maybe those names aren't necessarily the kind we'd expect to be fighting for the podium, the top 5 or whatever, but that doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of how easy it is to beat them (meaning that arguments like "Landa isn't that impressive because he only beat so and so by this much", or even "Contador isn't that great here because look at the riders he isn't dropping" might well be flawed).

The pace thing is not magic, though. The outliers are still too out there to be plausible (so no "Landa's performance is logical, he's just a true endurance GT kind of rider" arguments despite what I said above. And yes, this means it's very subjective. It can't be any other way).
If I am not mistaken then Dekker_Tifosi also hinted that after rest day we should expect great fireworks and Astana will go berserk. Well, it did not happen. I am also quite sceptical about claims that it has been ridiculosuly hard GT nad pace has beeb murderous. How do we know? How to measure hardness?

Btw, I am not saying that slow Mortirolo is a proof of cleanliness and I agree that context, variables etc matter. But what I see is certain hypocrisy, people operate with preconceived "truths" and if incoming data will not support it, they looking for excuses.
 
I've seen a lot of unbelievable cr*p in the last few years. Stage 16 was not in that category. It was actually perfectly believable (now be clear, it doesn't follow that I'm asserting that everyone is clean). I was expecting Aru to unleash the post-rest day music from an Astana dominated select group doing crazy things up a crazy climb. What we got was a general hammering - riders all over the shop, with vampire eyes and empty legs. Quite human. And it is hardly unusual in the history of the sport to have a relatively unknown, but clearly talented Basque climber take the spoils on those epic days. If he was wearing the orange of Euskaltel no one would raise an eyebrow. Add in the watt numbers and times.....conclusion: it don't look alien. It surely is, but it don't look it.
 
Von Mises, I didn't mean to say that Dekker_Tifosi is an infalible soothsayer, merely that I agree with what he was saying.

How to assess the pace and the hardness? By having eyes, mostly. Look at the race, at the body language of the group as the domestiques pull, at the level of the breakaways and their gaps, at the size of the groups, at the time spent by the contenders having to take responsibility. That sort of thing. I might be wrong, but I think it all paints a very consistent picture.
 
Talking about hardness of the 2015 race. Mortirolo stage.
2015 - 177 km, stage 16, just after rest day
2010 - 195 km, stage 19, 4 days after rest day
2008 - 224 km, stage 20, 4 days after rest day
2006 - 211 km, stage 20, 10 days after rest day
2004 - 122 km, stage 19, 4 days after rest day
1999 - 190 km, stage 21, 8 days after rest day
1997 - 238 km, stage 21, 11 days after rest day
1996 - 250 km, stage 21, 18 days after rest day (Giro had only one rest day, so if people are saying how hard 2015 Giro is, I suggest to learn history)
1994 - 195 km, stage 15, 15 days after rest day (This Giro did not have rest days at all)

I am not saying that this comparison is perfect, but people who say that 2015 Giro is especially hard, tehy know nothing. It is easy Giro. 2015 Mortirolo stage is one of the easiest in history.
 
Mar 31, 2015
278
0
0
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I've seen a lot of unbelievable cr*p in the last few years. Stage 16 was not in that category. It was actually perfectly believable (now be clear, it doesn't follow that I'm asserting that everyone is clean). I was expecting Aru to unleash the post-rest day music from an Astana dominated select group doing crazy things up a crazy climb. What we got was a general hammering - riders all over the shop, with vampire eyes and empty legs. Quite human. And it is hardly unusual in the history of the sport to have a relatively unknown, but clearly talented Basque climber take the spoils on those epic days. If he was wearing the orange of Euskaltel no one would raise an eyebrow. Add in the watt numbers and times.....conclusion: it don't look alien. It surely is, but it don't look it.
Well put, there is a lot of competition on here to be the first to spot obvious extra-terrestrial performances but if someone thinks they saw super humans flying up the climbs yesterday I'd be fascinated to know what they think "normal" looks like on a climb like that. (not saying it proves they are clean, I am very sceptical about performance based "evidence")
 
Re:

Von Mises said:
Talking about hardness of the 2015 race. Mortirolo stage.
2015 - 177 km, stage 16, just after rest day
2010 - 195 km, stage 19, 4 days after rest day
2008 - 224 km, stage 20, 4 days after rest day
2006 - 211 km, stage 20, 10 days after rest day
2004 - 122 km, stage 19, 4 days after rest day
1999 - 190 km, stage 21, 8 days after rest day
1997 - 238 km, stage 21, 11 days after rest day
1996 - 250 km, stage 21, 18 days after rest day (Giro had only one rest day, so if people are saying how hard 2015 Giro is, I suggest to learn history)
1994 - 195 km, stage 15, 15 days after rest day (This Giro did not have rest days at all)

I am not saying that this comparison is perfect, but people who say that 2015 Giro is especially hard, tehy know nothing. It is easy Giro. 2015 Mortirolo stage is one of the easiest in history.
The people who say it's been hard are talking about how it's been ridden, not the parcours. You can see expected finishing times versus reality, watch the race, and listen to what the riders and DS's are saying about how hard it's been.

The riders make the race. As always.
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I've seen a lot of unbelievable cr*p in the last few years. Stage 16 was not in that category. It was actually perfectly believable (now be clear, it doesn't follow that I'm asserting that everyone is clean). I was expecting Aru to unleash the post-rest day music from an Astana dominated select group doing crazy things up a crazy climb. What we got was a general hammering - riders all over the shop, with vampire eyes and empty legs. Quite human. And it is hardly unusual in the history of the sport to have a relatively unknown, but clearly talented Basque climber take the spoils on those epic days. If he was wearing the orange of Euskaltel no one would raise an eyebrow. Add in the watt numbers and times.....conclusion: it don't look alien. It surely is, but it don't look it.
My commentary was based on having watched most of the 16 stages, and seeing riding that doesn't look in the least bit clean.
 
Re: Re:

Von Mises said:
hrotha said:
It's true that the field is not particularly strong, and it's true that the watt figures aren't necessarily that impressive. However, let's not forget what Dekker_Tifosi hinted at and what red flanders said: that the pace in this race has been absolutely murderous from the very beginning. It's been a ridiculously hard GT so far, and that naturally should have an impact both on the W/kg figures but also on the kind of rider who can end up near the front. Maybe those names aren't necessarily the kind we'd expect to be fighting for the podium, the top 5 or whatever, but that doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of how easy it is to beat them (meaning that arguments like "Landa isn't that impressive because he only beat so and so by this much", or even "Contador isn't that great here because look at the riders he isn't dropping" might well be flawed).

The pace thing is not magic, though. The outliers are still too out there to be plausible (so no "Landa's performance is logical, he's just a true endurance GT kind of rider" arguments despite what I said above. And yes, this means it's very subjective. It can't be any other way).
If I am not mistaken then Dekker_Tifosi also hinted that after rest day we should expect great fireworks and Astana will go berserk. Well, it did not happen. I am also quite sceptical about claims that it has been ridiculosuly hard GT nad pace has beeb murderous. How do we know? How to measure hardness?

Btw, I am not saying that slow Mortirolo is a proof of cleanliness and I agree that context, variables etc matter. But what I see is certain hypocrisy, people operate with preconceived "truths" and if incoming data will not support it, they looking for excuses.
Don't agree with you on this. You could see how fast they were going before the Mortirolo. That makes a difference on the times. I think these are not excuses. If they ask me I would go with Dekker_Tifosi's theory. I like it better.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
No one's saying this Giro is especially hard on paper (for historical Giro standards). People are saying it's being raced particularly hard.
But how do they know that it is raced particularly hard? What is hard?
Today GC men have campervans and helicopters to save few minutes of rest, 20 years ago guys like Bugno had to carry water and snacks during flat stages for guys like Abdoujaparov. Easy or hard?
Today Contdors´s team had to chase few kilometers and it is called hard. Pantani and Idurain are ataccking each other 90 kms from finish - easy?
Today when GC leader attack few kms before finish, it is called miracle. 15 years ago Heras, Simoni, Gotti, etc having climbed 4 mountains, including Gavia (they do not even go so high this year) attack 70 kms before finish easy?

Riders and DS´s (Sean Kelly is excpetion) always talk how hard it is. If riders like Hesjedal or Betancur can go into breaks day after day, it is not sign of hard racing, it is sign of easy racing.
 
Re: Re:

Von Mises said:
hrotha said:
No one's saying this Giro is especially hard on paper (for historical Giro standards). People are saying it's being raced particularly hard.
But how do they know that it is raced particularly hard? What is hard?
Today GC men have campervans and helicopters to save few minutes of rest, 20 years ago guys like Bugno had to carry water and snacks during flat stages for guys like Abdoujaparov. Easy or hard?
Today Contdors´s team had to chase few kilometers and it is called hard. Pantani and Idurain are ataccking each other 90 kms from finish - easy?
Today when GC leader attack few kms before finish, it is called miracle. 15 years ago Heras, Simoni, Gotti, etc having climbed 4 mountains, including Gavia (they do not even go so high this year) attack 70 kms before finish easy?

Riders and DS´s (Sean Kelly is excpetion) always talk how hard it is. If riders like Hesjedal or Betancur can go into breaks day after day, it is not sign of hard racing, it is sign of easy racing.
MIchael Rogers has apparently said it is the hardest GT he has done as far as power output. The have really been going quickly early in stages and it has been hard work getting a break formed on lots of stages. The breaks have not been given too much rope even though they have succeeded a lot which is a bit contradictory.
 
Re: Re:

Von Mises said:
But how do they know that it is raced particularly hard? What is hard?
We know from watching the race, the speed and crashes, the number of attacks, and from what the riders are saying which verifies all the above.

Today GC men have campervans and helicopters to save few minutes of rest, 20 years ago guys like Bugno had to carry water and snacks during flat stages for guys like Abdoujaparov. Easy or hard?
Today Contdors´s team had to chase few kilometers and it is called hard. Pantani and Idurain are ataccking each other 90 kms from finish - easy?
One guy has an RV, and top riders have been taking helicopter rides from the top since LeMond. You also have to understand that the Giro was never ridden as hard as the Tour back in the day. Some stages yes, but overall it was much more piano in the bunch over many stages. It was easier.

As far as the long-distance attacks, well those were supported by over 50% hemo, and yes, that made it easier because it was much easier to recover. Not to say these guys are any form of clean, but it's not the nuclear option that was going on back then.


Today when GC leader attack few kms before finish, it is called miracle. 15 years ago Heras, Simoni, Gotti, etc having climbed 4 mountains, including Gavia (they do not even go so high this year) attack 70 kms before finish easy?
Again, a different kind of doping. And you're talking about hard for a few guys. When the leaders take off like that, the race behind is over and it's easier for the vast majority of the bunch.

Riders and DS´s (Sean Kelly is excpetion) always talk how hard it is. If riders like Hesjedal or Betancur can go into breaks day after day, it is not sign of hard racing, it is sign of easy racing.[/quote]
 
Re: Re:

Von Mises said:
hrotha said:
No one's saying this Giro is especially hard on paper (for historical Giro standards). People are saying it's being raced particularly hard.
But how do they know that it is raced particularly hard? What is hard?
Today GC men have campervans and helicopters to save few minutes of rest, 20 years ago guys like Bugno had to carry water and snacks during flat stages for guys like Abdoujaparov. Easy or hard?
Today Contdors´s team had to chase few kilometers and it is called hard. Pantani and Idurain are ataccking each other 90 kms from finish - easy?
Today when GC leader attack few kms before finish, it is called miracle. 15 years ago Heras, Simoni, Gotti, etc having climbed 4 mountains, including Gavia (they do not even go so high this year) attack 70 kms before finish easy?

Riders and DS´s (Sean Kelly is excpetion) always talk how hard it is. If riders like Hesjedal or Betancur can go into breaks day after day, it is not sign of hard racing, it is sign of easy racing.
20 years ago, the distances were much longer in every way and a much different sport. The distance muted the action quite a bit. Bahamontes, the Eagle of Toledo, laughs at describing the distances for both generations as difficult. He has a point.

Today, they are doing about 4 hour days. It packs the action in. Each is difficult.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS