• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 244 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Except that Pantani's Bianchi is reported to have weighed 6.96kgs not 9kgs, and Pogačar’s Colnago 7.3kgs:
Durianrider would laugh at Politt. These new bikes are definitely incredibly at high speeds on the flat and what have you, but Im very curious how it would stack up uphill against late 90's bike (think Telekoms Pinarello or Mercatone Uno's Binachi) and mid 00's US Postal Trek Madone. Or even the Specialized Tarmac bikes Bora and QS rode in the 10's, the Pinarellos of Sky etc..

I bet the difference isn't that big up a climb like Plateau de Beille. Especially not compared to, say, mid 00's and forward. Its blody 0,5 kg. That definitely counts for something, and discs definitely do make you go slower on a final climb. I still don't know why they don't switch to a bike with rim brakes when its obviously favorable up a climb. Im certain Michael Rasmussen would have told Rabobank just that in the mid 00's!
 
Last edited:
Durianrider would laugh at Politt. These new bikes are definitely incredibly at high speeds on the flat and what have you, but Im very curious how it would stack up uphill against late 90's bike (think Telekoms Pinarello or Mercatone Uno's Binachi) and mid 00's US Postal Trek Madone. Or even the Specialized Tarmac bikes Bora and QS rode in the 10's, the Pinarellos of Sky etc..

I bet the difference isn't that big up a climb like Plateau de Beille. Especially not compared to, say, mid 00's and forward. Its blody 0,5 kg. That definitely counts for something, and discs definitely do make you go slower on a final climb. I still don't know why they don't switch to a bike with rim brakes when its obviously favorable up a climb. Im certain Michael Rasmussen would have told Rabobank just that in the mid 00's!
this is just not true, bikes are much faster also on uphill; tyres are the biggest gain, than gearing.... also the clothing; just look at the jersey Pantani was wearing....
 
this is just not true, bikes are much faster also on uphill; tyres are the biggest gain, than gearing.... also the clothing; just look at the jersey Pantani was wearing....
Im talking bike specifically. Clothing, sure, the tyres are definitely also a small amount faster uphill, the diet is another ballgame completely. Anyone who just laughs at that don't really understand fueling and how much it has involved, BUT I have yet to be convinced a super 00's bike like the Trek Madone is so, so inferior to modern disc bikes uphill as some people have a vested interest in making us believe.
 
this is just not true, bikes are much faster also on uphill; tyres are the biggest gain, than gearing.... also the clothing; just look at the jersey Pantani was wearing....
Do we have any objective data that confirms this? The industry make a lot of grandiose claims but never mention independent tests. In the late 80s there was a lot of hype over aero gains too.

Bikes are a little faster uphill but most of the gains compared to today's bikes are made at higher speeds than you get on a mountain. Aero and tyres won't account for 3 minutes in a 40 minute climb like PdB. Remember when Pantani set the previous PdB record he was likely on unrestricted EPO. At 22km/h the difference between an old jersey and today's is minimal. On flat and descents sure. But not on an 8% climb.

And there is mountains of evidence online that Pantani's bike was under 7kg so that is line ball with today's bikes.

 
Last edited:
Do we have any objective data that confirms this? The industry make a lot of grandiose claims but never mention independent tests. In the late 80s there was a lot of hype over aero gains too.

Bikes are a little faster uphill but most of the gains compared to today's bikes are made at higher speeds than you get on a mountain. Aero and tyres won't account for 3 minutes in a 40 minute climb like PdB. Remember when Pantani set the previous PdB record he was likely on uninhibited EPO. At 22km/h the difference between an old jersey and today's is minimal. On flat and descents sure. But not on an 8% climb.

And there is mountains of evidence online that Pantani's bike was under 7kg so that is line ball with today's bikes.

Only possible explanation... is just... GOAT.
 
Faster bikes, better diets, more advanced training, better equipment, ect. We were spun this tripe by US Postal, and it was proven to be a smokescreen.

Yes, things have advanced somewhat, but I don't believe any amount of modern equipment and training can totally account for these alien times we are now witnessing on climbs. There must be more to it than that. It's all in the mind and body.

Lemond stated he never exceeded 400 watts; today's cyclists are doing this regularly, and that is telling.

"When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts."
 
Last edited:
Faster bikes, better diets, more advanced training, better equipment, ect. We were spun this tripe by US Postal, and it was proven to be a smokescreen.

Yes, things have advanced somewhat, but I don't believe any amount of modern equipment and training can totally account for these alien times we are now witnessing on climbs. There must be more to it than that. It's all in the mind and body.

Lemond stated he never exceeded 400 watts; today's cyclists are doing this regularly, and that is telling.

Up until maybe 2019 6 watts / kilo was considered the upper limit of what was possible clean. Anything above 6w/kg was considered clear evidence of doping. That matches Lemond's claim (Lemond was 67Kg). At the Tour Pogacar was doing 17% better (7w/kg) and Vingegaard was almost matching him despite his big crash and interrupted prep. Even Remco's level was quite insane really. Even riders like Landa if we look closely. Landa seemed stronger than he was in the 2022 Giro. Something has changed since Covid.
 
Up until maybe 2019 6 watts / kilo was considered the upper limit of what was possible clean. Anything above 6w/kg was considered clear evidence of doping. That matches Lemond's claim (Lemond was 67Kg). At the Tour Pogacar was doing 17% better (7w/kg) and Vingegaard was almost matching him despite his big crash and interrupted prep. Even Remco's level was quite insane really. Even riders like Landa if we look closely. Landa seemed stronger than he was in the 2022 Giro. Something has changed since Covid.
There's just enough plausibility in the things that have improved (bikes, training, nutrition) to fool the masses into thinking that the performances are real. But in other sports, including doping heavy sports, it's shocking to see even a 2% improvement in an athlete's peak performance from year to year. Niels Pollitt improves 30% in one off-season and no one cares. Tadej improves 5% and eyebrows are barely raised.
 
Do we have any objective data that confirms this? The industry make a lot of grandiose claims but never mention independent tests. In the late 80s there was a lot of hype over aero gains too.

Bikes are a little faster uphill but most of the gains compared to today's bikes are made at higher speeds than you get on a mountain. Aero and tyres won't account for 3 minutes in a 40 minute climb like PdB. Remember when Pantani set the previous PdB record he was likely on uninhibited EPO. At 22km/h the difference between an old jersey and today's is minimal. On flat and descents sure. But not on an 8% climb.

And there is mountains of evidence online that Pantani's bike was under 7kg so that is line ball with today's bikes.

Well, you do come into a later climb fresher at least on an aero bike with wider tires. Also a lot of the roads used in GTs, especially the Tour, are better surfaced.
 
Also a lot of the roads used in GTs, especially the Tour, are better surfaced.
This doesn't change the fact that they're pushing monstrous never before seen W/kg now.

What remains even if you remove all the comparisons to previous eras is the massive leaps in performance we see literally from year to year. I've yet to hear anyone even try to explain that with some concrete changes to training, fueling, technology whatever.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noob
This doesn't change the fact that they're pushing monstrous never before seen W/kg now.

What remains even if you remove all the comparisons to previous eras is the massive leaps in performance we see literally from year to year. I've yet to hear anyone even try to explain that with some concrete changes to training, fueling, technology whatever.
And it's not just in cycling. It's everywhere. In athletics we are seeing world records from the cold war era being broken. In Swimming they are going faster than in that dolphin swimsuit era. I was watching some rowing at the olympics and the commentator said that the last placed athlete would have won gold in Rio (8 years ago). It's crazy out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
And it's not just in cycling. It's everywhere. In athletics we are seeing world records from the cold war era being broken. In Swimming they are going faster than in that dolphin swimsuit era. I was watching some rowing at the olympics and the commentator said that the last placed athlete would have won gold in Rio (8 years ago). It's crazy out there.
Meanwhile they're not getting within 2 meters of Usain Bolt totally normals
 
And it's not just in cycling. It's everywhere. In athletics we are seeing world records from the cold war era being broken. In Swimming they are going faster than in that dolphin swimsuit era. I was watching some rowing at the olympics and the commentator said that the last placed athlete would have won gold in Rio (8 years ago). It's crazy out there.
While no doubt doping is rife we can’t assume every gain must be doping. In 1972 the legendary Mark Spitz set the men’s world 100metre freestyle record at 51.2 seconds. They are swimming sub 48 today. I don’t believe all those gains are doping.

The men’s 400 metre freestyle world record was set in 2009 in a super suit (3:40.07). That is just one hundredth of a second quicker than the previous world record not set in the super suits which were banned in 2010.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
Meanwhile they're not getting within 2 meters of Usain Bolt totally normals
Yeah but Usain's competition was usually all dopers. He needed to be on top form and go above and beyond his limit to beat them. Not like the current crop which are all clean. There's no extra pressure for them to go the extra mile. /s

Still in these Olympics it was the first time that a run of 9.95s was not good enough to get you to the final. And in the final it was super close. Only 0.12s separating the finalists. They all ran under 9.90 with exception of one who ran 9.91. Arguably the best race since 1988 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
While no doubt doping is rife we can’t assume every gain must be doping. In 1972 the legendary Mark Spitz set the men’s world 100metre freestyle record at 51.2 seconds. They are swimming sub 48 today. I don’t believe all those gains are doping.

The men’s 400 metre freestyle world record was set in 2009 in a super suit (3:40.07). That is just one hundredth of a second quicker than the previous world record not set in the super suits which were banned in 2010.

It tells us how ridiculous Ian Thorpe's time was, when it's pretty much the only pre super suit era PB in any discipline, across both genders, that can't be beaten by anyone today. Paul Biederman beat it by that one hundredth of a second at those crazy Rome championships, but two days later he massacred the WR in the 200m, and set a time which was 2 seconds faster than Thorpe ever swam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookster15