the peloton was clean for a few months after 1998 festina scandal...

[Cobblestones]

After rereading your post closely I understand now. Thanks for the heads up. But, the graph would be just as useful if they plotted w/kg. Why the multipication with the bogus weight? It skews the numbers upward....why would anybody want to do that?

Since this type of analysis has been around for so long, I assume it has historical reasons. Yes, it would be better to only quote W/kg and be done with it.

As for the method, I think it is one of the best comparative analysis across years. I've gone through the pain and once read the precise methodology; there's a lot of details taken into account and I felt satisfied with the way it was done, but YMMV.

 

[ManInFull]

After rereading your post closely I understand now. Thanks for the heads up. But, the graph would be just as useful if they plotted w/kg. Why the multipication with the bogus weight? It skews the numbers upward....why would anybody want to do that?

What is surprising is the low numbers 99-2001. According to FL after this time blood doping came to the forefront and EPO was used less, if at all. I am surprised they are so low, especially in 2001 when LA was out of this world.

Look at the amount of times in 2003....I can only think of one outstanding performance in that tour and that was on Luz Arduden, and that was after his fall which costs alot of time and thus should cause a lower number.

This chart just seems suspicious to me, and I wish I knew it's basis better.

I have to agree. I don't make my living as a scientist, but there are too my unanswered questions even for the laymen.

 

[sub240]

About 2010, the chart is reporting the number of riders above 410W but what we have showed in 2010 is that riders were not able to produce more than 410W at each stage as it was.

People were able to have (stupidly) a long run with riders, so the speed was less than "usual".

It seems like your just wishfully thinking or wishing. Try just sticking to things that makes sense. Cycling = dope. Thank you France.

 

[sub240]

Well look at 2009 and 2010.... suddenly they are as high as Armstrong era 2005...and coincidentally, Lance returned in 2009. What could this mean?

I think you made up your own mind anyway. Check it. .....what does team PDM mean?

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

After rereading your post closely I understand now. Thanks for the heads up. But, the graph would be just as useful if they plotted w/kg. Why the multipication with the bogus weight? It skews the numbers upward....why would anybody want to do that?

What is surprising is the low numbers 99-2001. According to FL after this time blood doping came to the forefront and EPO was used less, if at all. I am surprised they are so low, especially in 2001 when LA was out of this world.

Look at the amount of times in 2003....I can only think of one outstanding performance in that tour and that was on Luz Arduden, and that was after his fall which costs alot of time and thus should cause a lower number.

This chart just seems suspicious to me, and I wish I knew it's basis better.

Well, by the chart given by poupou, Lance was extremely better than everyone else, being one of the only two that produced over 410 watts. The chart is not very good because the 410 watt limit is too high and forces numbers to be low. In 2003, the numbers are so high because everyone pretty much stayed together. As you said, there was only 1 outstanding performance IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER RIDERS.

 

[Fester]

When was the bike weight limit introduced? Before that time, bikes were lighter in the mountains. Carbon or not.
I can build you a steel frame+fork bike with decade old technology of around 5-6kg. And it won't sukk.

Yes indeed. Merckx rode a titanium bike weighing 5.5kgs to the Hour World Record in Mexico City in 1972!

Also bike weight nonsense is for weight weenies.

 

[ChrisE]

Well, by the chart given by poupou, Lance was extremely better than everyone else, being one of the only two that produced over 410 watts. The chart is not very good because the 410 watt limit is too high and forces numbers to be low. In 2003, the numbers are so high because everyone pretty much stayed together. As you said, there was only 1 outstanding performance IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER RIDERS.

What was the other one in 2003? Mayo on Alpe du Huez? He climbed it like a minute slower than LA did in 2001, and he is lighter. It was insanely hot that year as well. The chart says there were 7 in that tour. And, compare that to 2002 when he rode away from everybody with only 2 high performances.

I call BS on the surface.

 

[Le breton]

Huh? Using a generic weight of 78 kg is misleading so I am not really following you here. Pantani riding up a mountain at the same speed as Indurain should not equal the same watts/rider, but it does using this analysis. So, what is the point of it?

In the range of effort we are talking about, Pantani would need to produce about 6,15 watts/kg if Indurain was producing 6,0 watts/kg.

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

What was the other one in 2003? Mayo on Alpe du Huez? He climbed it like a minute slower than LA did in 2001, and he is lighter. It was insanely hot that year as well. The chart says there were 7 in that tour. And, compare that to 2002 when he rode away from everybody with only 2 high performances.

I call BS on the surface.

No, the chart says that 7 different riders in 2003 had higher than 410 watts. So, that suggest that they all were outstanding. To the spectator, no one seemed very outstanding because they were all staying together, only at a high pace.

 

[Joey_J]

The peloton was clean for a few months after the 1998 festina scandal..and confirms the almost clean peleton in 1999... Thanks Lance for bringing the drugs back to the sport!

the 98 Tour was won by Pantani with Ulrich 2nd and Julich (ask D Millar if they were doping on Cofidis in 98) 3rd.

The 98 Vuelta was Olano, Escartin, Jimenez, Armstrong, Jalabert, Heras, Galdeano, Zulle....

98 world champ was Oscar Camenzind

The 99 Giro was won by Gotti (doper) because Pantani got Popped during the race.

Tell us again when cycling was clean between July 98 and July 99

 

[Escarabajo]

well since we dont know real weight of a rider using 78kg can be confusing and lead to mistakes (correct me if im wrong)

For this purpose of making the point is perfectly OK. I don't see anything wrong. That is called Normalizing the data and is a technical acceptable engineering procedure in calculations of energy and power.

In fact most of the engineering procedures tend to find plots, graphs and formulas that normalize the data for the purpose of comparing different type of information from different sources.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

From a scientific perspective, this type of analysis ignores so many thing just to make the case that people are doped (which they likely are).

It ignores changes to equipment like lighter weight carbon frames, lower rolling resistance wheels, a better selection of gears (11 speed vs 8), and targeted training. Before the dates shown, how many riders came in to the tour having burned their matches in the Giro and spring classics?

By the way, it also uses the average of 78 kg for the riders. Does anyone think Alberto Contador is 78 kg (172 pounds)???

In all my calculations I take into account all that you are saying. so?

Again, Normalization of the data is perfectly OK for comparison reasons.

 

[patricknd]

the 98 Tour was won by Pantani with Ulrich 2nd and Julich (ask D Millar if they were doping on Cofidis in 98) 3rd.

The 98 Vuelta was Olano, Escartin, Jimenez, Armstrong, Jalabert, Heras, Galdeano, Zulle....

98 world champ was Oscar Camenzind

The 99 Giro was won by Gotti (doper) because Pantani got Popped during the race.

Tell us again when cycling was clean between July 98 and July 99

don't question the chart, man. these walls have ears