Time trial speeds

Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Can riders today match the speeds of Indurain, Armstrong etc? Or is it pointless to compare due to too many variables?

I looked at the avg speed of the winner in the worlds ITT over the years.

95,98,01,07,10 are not included due to being non flat.

in 04 and 12 I used the olympics instead for the same reason.

It is difficult to find profiles from the 90s, so its possible I overlooked something there.



 
the sceptic said:
Can riders today match the speeds of Indurain, Armstrong etc? Or is it pointless to compare due to too many variables?

I looked at the avg speed of the winner in the worlds ITT over the years.

95,98,01,07,10 are not included due to being non flat.

in 04 and 12 I used the olympics instead for the same reason.

It is difficult to find profiles from the 90s, so its possible I overlooked something there.



]


Should look at the Tour if you can.

A lot of non-ITT'ers ITT'iing and not doing the worlds.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
thehog said:
Should look at the Tour if you can.

A lot of non-ITT'ers ITT'iing and not doing the worlds.
I will take a look at the grand tours next time I have some time to kill.

Will be interesting to see if the trend of speeds not down continues.

Of course its impossible to account for tailwinds and different courses.

But it is a fun excercise nevertheless.
 
I posted a link to this earlier this year:

In the aftermath of USADA’s doping charges, Lance Armstrong eventually acknowledged the use of banned substances during his professional cycling career. Reckoning his confessions, we decided to evaluate Armstrong’s sportive accomplishments by comparing his winning time trial achievements with achievements demonstrated by other riders in similar races over the years. In time trial racing, there are no collaborating riders on the course, making opportunities to profit from other riders’ efforts through drafting impossible. Time trial performances thus solely depend on the strength and endurance of the individual rider. Accordingly, we argue that an examination of the ‘historic’ variation in these individual performances will increase chances to detect the influence of illicit doping aids on Armstrong’s performances. In view of his doping use, we expected that his performances would be faster compared to performances of his counterparts in foregoing and succeeding years. We scrutinized archival records of the cycling sport and retrieved information concerning Armstrong’s winning time trial performances (N = 7), realized in the Tour de France (1999–2005), as well as performances of other riders (N = 55) who, from 1934 to 2010, won races in the three European Grand Tours (Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, and Vuelta a España) and all faced time trial distances comparable to Armstrong’s (50–61 km). We examined our research question by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with riders as the independent variable (Armstrong vs. the other riders) and mean km/h performances as the dependent variable in which we controlled for the influence of year of competition (i.e., the year in which riders won their time trial) and distances of the trials on riders’ speed. ANCOVA initially revealed that Armstrong (Mkm/h = 49.37) indeed raced faster relative to the other riders (Mkm/h = 44.67, p ≤ 0.05). However, this main effect disappeared (p = 0.80) after controlling for the influence of competition year on riders’ performances, b = 0.20 km/h, p ≤ 0.001. Distance did not have a significant influence, b = -0.03 km/h, p = 0.84. ANCOVA further indicated that all but one of Armstrong’s performances fell within the bandwidth of the 68%–confidence interval. Reckoning the historic variation in riders’ performances, Armstrong’s achievements do not appear to be outstanding or atypical, implying that effects of the performance–enhancing doping aids he resorted to are limited. Alternatively, his performances can also be plausibly explained by a gradual progress in speed over time, which is characteristic for professional cycling races such as the Tour de France.


I made some criticisms of this study at the time, but just collecting the data is very valuable.
 
Merckx index said:
I posted a link to this earlier this year:

[/B]

I made some criticisms of this study at the time, but just collecting the data is very valuable.
It doesn't help one's credibility when the conclusion (i.e. no doping benefit) doesn't match the reality.

Your second point is also very well taken. Collecting the data is valuable.

In terms of competing with Indurain, that 508 watts for an hour does stand out.

Dave.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Yes its average speed of the winner. Ideally I would use more riders but its hard to find data from the early 90s.

I dont do anything to account for distance so thats probably a disadvantage for the early 90s tours.

However the worlds and the vuelta distances are all between 40 and 50 km.



Interesting to note that they dont seem to be going any slower now than in the 90s.
 
D-Queued said:
It doesn't help one's credibility when the conclusion (i.e. no doping benefit) doesn't match the reality.

Your second point is also very well taken. Collecting the data is valuable.

In terms of competing with Indurain, that 508 watts for an hour does stand out.

Dave.
Well it just emphasises that the ITT is all about W/m^2, and some did have the W (which gave them W/kg for climbs and general performance and recovery) but their CdA wasn't as good as some.

That's the reason Armstrong abandoned an hour record attempt, he simply couldn't get his CdA low enough.

Some riders are aerodynamically gifted. I'm not one of them.
 
the sceptic said:
Yes its average speed of the winner. Ideally I would use more riders but its hard to find data from the early 90s.

I dont do anything to account for distance so thats probably a disadvantage for the early 90s tours.

However the worlds and the vuelta distances are all between 40 and 50 km.



Interesting to note that they dont seem to be going any slower now than in the 90s.
How much of that is down to better TT bikes though?
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
the sceptic said:
An interesting graphic but I note that Tony Martin averaged 45.9 kph for stage 20 (42.4 km) of this years TdF and averaged 51.9 kph for this years world championship (56.8 km). The WC course was flatter and possibly with less corners (I'm not sure about the corners).
So I'm not sure if any conclusions can be drawn from this graphic.
 
avanti said:
An interesting graphic but I note that Tony Martin averaged 45.9 kph for stage 20 (42.4 km) of this years TdF and averaged 51.9 kph for this years world championship (56.8 km). The WC course was flatter and possibly with less corners (I'm not sure about the corners).
So I'm not sure if any conclusions can be drawn from this graphic.
You mean 2011, right?

If so, that data point isn't included in the graph, as it was on a hilly course.
 
Netserk said:
Sure, but it's not like there's more (often) tailwind nowadays than there were back then. With enough data points, it should even (somewhat) out.
Most Tour ITTs and WC are out and back. So you'll get both extremes.

Most but not all I should add.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Netserk said:
You mean 2011, right?

If so, that data point isn't included in the graph, as it was on a hilly course.
You could be right. I searched cycling news.com for TdF results and that is what came up. I find it hard to find past GT results on this site.

Maybe someone could review results from the UK; many ITTs are run on the same course year after year. There could still be weather and road surface based variations but should show trends with time pretty well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY