Why aren't Tour de France riders going any faster?

[tdiethe]

Posted on stackexchange.com:

http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/7661/why-arent-tour-de-france-riders-going-any-faster

 

[Zam_Olyas]

a wager..will this post be transferred?

 

[tdiethe]

a wager..will this post be transferred?

Not if everyone behaves ;-)

 

[cyclingPRpro]

2 posts? yeah, this isn't a troll thread or anything.

smh.

 

[just some guy]

Not if everyone behaves ;-)

yep the Elephant Problem Obviously Ignore it and it might sit on you

 

[William H]

Ignoring the Elephant in the room, you don't really want to be comparing average speeds, because they depend heavily on tactics and course. Better to compare final climbs and TTs.

You also need to remember that a 10% increase in power output will result in much less than a 10% increase in speed, because of the way drag works. This applies particularly on the flat where speeds are higher.

 

[tdiethe]

2 posts? yeah, this isn't a troll thread or anything.

smh.

Harsh? According to Wikipedia:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]."

- is it on-topic? yes
- was my primary intent to provoke readers into an emotional response? no
- was it disruptive? not till you came along

 

[tdiethe]

Ignoring the Elephant in the room, you don't really want to be comparing average speeds, because they depend heavily on tactics and course. Better to compare final climbs and TTs.

You also need to remember that a 10% increase in power output will result in much less than a 10% increase in speed, because of the way drag works. This applies particularly on the flat where speeds are higher.

Right ... something about a cube law? Physicists around?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Global Spoke Squirrel population is on the rise.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16373&page=3

 

[Ryaguas]

in before close?

 

[Angliru]

Not if everyone behaves ;-)

Good luck with that!

 

[Master50]

I think a couple of his base line assumptions are off. He noted the increased speeds at end of the 90s and assumed that doping was involved but then says they have always been doping so that can't be the reason. Trouble with that assumption is this is when doping actually made athletes faster. Before EPO doping worked for pain and sleep depravation but it did not really make the riders faster.

 

[Kwibus]

I think a couple of his base line assumptions are off. He noted the increased speeds at end of the 90s and assumed that doping was involved but then says they have always been doping so that can't be the reason. Trouble with that assumption is this is when doping actually made athletes faster. Before EPO doping worked for pain and sleep depravation but it did not really make the riders faster.

But stopping the pain makes the riders drive on for longer at the same high speed. Because they can endure the pain longer they will be able to put on a better average speed.
Same with sleep depravation. Now take this thread somewhere else

 

[skidmark]

It is an interesting question. In a certain sense, bike racing is hard to measure in terms of absolute speed, as you only have to be fast enough to cross the line first (which only conflates with absolute speed in a TT), so a lot of days depend on who's controlling the peloton, how dangerous the break is, weather conditions, etc. However, with the TdF, you would think that in the long run, a 3-week tour would somewhat be an equalizer for those random variables, and although it might fluctuate from year to year, it WOULD get faster over time with better technology, training, etc. And, in the increasing age of sponsorship focus on the TdF and worldwide coverage, you constantly hear anecdotally that it's a hard race because everyone is in form, and everyone is going as hard as they can from the gun (for the most part). You'd expect at least one group from the 200 riders to drive the speed every day, and you'd expect incentive to go fast to be at the maximum it's ever been, given those parameters.

As noted, I think EPO mostly made people go 'faster' up finishing climbs (and generally affected endurance rather than sheer speed), which, if there was a drop in EPO use, would maybe change the average speed downwards slightly. So if you accept the idea that doping has been lessened in the last 10 years, that might be enough of a mitigating factor to level speeds for the last 10 years as noted in the article, by offsetting minor improvements in other areas. Another thought is that bike technology, despite the 'bells-and-whistles' advertising for any new development (remember Lance's secret bike with the narrower bottom bracket?), really only gives a tiny, tiny advantage at the top end of things, which might just be enough for an individual to want it to win, but isn't really enough to have a broad effect on the peloton's speed.

So really, you have a few factors that I'm putting forward:
- increased training, motivation, technology over time has slowly but steadily increased speeds
- this is minimized by the fact that bike technology has been pretty good for 100 years, and really good in the last 25-30, so any improvements are fairly minor in effect
- the last 10 years have also been slightly mitigated by a decrease in doping

Who knows, maybe a data-based approach isn't the best, and it's really just because the peloton hasn't had a strong patron like Hinault to whip them into a frenzy. They just don't make 'em like they used to...

 

[Race Radio]

Because they are lazy

 

[Moondance]

Perhaps Experience-levels are Dropping?

 

[BillytheKid]

Right ... something about a cube law? Physicists around?

Actually that's pretty easy to understand. The faster you go the more aerodynamics becomes a factor. So...the whole purpose behind evolution and regulation of the TT machine. Some of the speed increase is due to improve bike design. I don't know if that proves or disprove anything though.

 

[skidmark]

Because they are lazy

I think you mistakenly posted here, instead of the 'why are the posters on cyclingnews forums not improving their post quality?' thread.

 

[El Pistolero]

Because if they go faster Cavendish never makes the time cut.

 

[Angliru]

Because if they go faster Cavendish never makes the time cut.

He'll just snag a longer tow on his team car. Problem solved.

 

[Dalakhani]

A few possible explanations:

(1) Different parcours will have different speeds. If there was a move to more difficult/hilly stages, then average speed should decrease.

(2) 2010 had the infamous neutralised stage, which could account for an overall slower average that year.

(3) The race may just be getting more tactical, with top contenders marking each other for most of the race.

Maybe all 3 of these points are just nonsense and, when examined run contrary to the facts. In which case, less dope would be the simple explanation.

 

[Master50]

But stopping the pain makes the riders drive on for longer at the same high speed. Because they can endure the pain longer they will be able to put on a better average speed.
Same with sleep depravation. Now take this thread somewhere else

If the author discounts the reasons for increased speeds at the end of the 90's based soley on the premis that they were taking PE before and after clearly brings my post to the conclusion I arrived at and not because I want to turn this into a clinic subject. The drugs of yore did not make them faster only fast longer. They still were not as fast as after EPO.
Tactics changed too. They used to go much easier early in stages with the speed ramping up toward the end of the stage. After EPO they went fast earlier and faster later.

 

[tdiethe]

If the author discounts the reasons for increased speeds at the end of the 90's based soley on the premis that they were taking PE before and after clearly brings my post to the conclusion I arrived at and not because I want to turn this into a clinic subject. The drugs of yore did not make them faster only fast longer. They still were not as fast as after EPO.
Tactics changed too. They used to go much easier early in stages with the speed ramping up toward the end of the stage. After EPO they went fast earlier and faster later.

Well there's an interesting answer by R. Cheung on the linked site. Quoting from the end of his answer:

And, although your question was not expressly about doping behavior in the pro peloton, a bit more must be said about that. The plot above shows a clear relationship between distance and speed but there is still a question about deviations (or the "residuals") from that relationship. In fact, the winners' average speeds in the early 1990's and early 2000's were above the long-term trend line. Some analysts have pointed at this secondary effect as evidence of doping. However, if one were to examine the "residuals" from a similar plot of speed vs. distance for the Giro and Vuelta, one would see that the years when their speeds were above (or below) their own trend lines did not correspond with the same years for the Tour. That is, the speed residual for the Tour and the speed residuals for the Giro or Vuelta are not "synchronized." Thus, if doping behavior explained the reason why Tour speeds were higher than would be predicted from distance, then one would have to explain why doping behavior was different in the Tour and Giro (or Vuelta) in the same year, often with the same riders. Below I include a plot that shows the "residuals" from the Tour (that is, residuals from the regression of winner's average speed on Tour length) plotted against the same residuals for the Giro. This does not mean, of course, that there is no doping in either the Tour or the Giro -- it simply means that one cannot use average speeds as evidence of that doping. Conversely, it also means that one cannot use doping as an explanation for increased average speed. Taken together, it does support the evidence that race organizers's decisions about the routes is a main determinant of the average speed.

 

[tdiethe]

It is an interesting question. In a certain sense, bike racing is hard to measure in terms of absolute speed, as you only have to be fast enough to cross the line first (which only conflates with absolute speed in a TT), so a lot of days depend on who's controlling the peloton, how dangerous the break is, weather conditions, etc. However, with the TdF, you would think that in the long run, a 3-week tour would somewhat be an equalizer for those random variables, and although it might fluctuate from year to year, it WOULD get faster over time with better technology, training, etc. And, in the increasing age of sponsorship focus on the TdF and worldwide coverage, you constantly hear anecdotally that it's a hard race because everyone is in form, and everyone is going as hard as they can from the gun (for the most part). You'd expect at least one group from the 200 riders to drive the speed every day, and you'd expect incentive to go fast to be at the maximum it's ever been, given those parameters.

As noted, I think EPO mostly made people go 'faster' up finishing climbs (and generally affected endurance rather than sheer speed), which, if there was a drop in EPO use, would maybe change the average speed downwards slightly. So if you accept the idea that doping has been lessened in the last 10 years, that might be enough of a mitigating factor to level speeds for the last 10 years as noted in the article, by offsetting minor improvements in other areas. Another thought is that bike technology, despite the 'bells-and-whistles' advertising for any new development (remember Lance's secret bike with the narrower bottom bracket?), really only gives a tiny, tiny advantage at the top end of things, which might just be enough for an individual to want it to win, but isn't really enough to have a broad effect on the peloton's speed.

So really, you have a few factors that I'm putting forward:
- increased training, motivation, technology over time has slowly but steadily increased speeds
- this is minimized by the fact that bike technology has been pretty good for 100 years, and really good in the last 25-30, so any improvements are fairly minor in effect
- the last 10 years have also been slightly mitigated by a decrease in doping

Who knows, maybe a data-based approach isn't the best, and it's really just because the peloton hasn't had a strong patron like Hinault to whip them into a frenzy. They just don't make 'em like they used to...

A serious answer! It does kind of make you think that bike technology is over-hyped. A 10% increase in speed since the 1960s? Doesn't sound like an awful lot ...

 

[stainlessguy1]

A serious answer! It does kind of make you think that bike technology is over-hyped. A 10% increase in speed since the 1960s? Doesn't sound like an awful lot ...

yes to that serious answer and a lot of other answers if everyone had read the link to the end.
The very fact from the begining of the first tours , the actual increase in speed from the below or around 32 km to the over 42 km , is a huge increase.
Even though the times and distances and other factors changed , so did the humans now competing.
The natural strength of people living in the early 40's and before to now is not comparable.
What would be interesting is if we could go back in a time machine and give a natural man capable of riding a horse all day and doing everything manually , shovelling coal , herding the cattle , picking up hay and handing him a bike only as new as the early 80s and then watching him do his 300 plus km as was usual in those days for many races , and note the times.

Then take the same over privaliged young buck that grew up in a car today and was driven everywhere and given him a single speed bike of say the war years and told him to ride the same old cobble roads of that time at 300km . then note the time . Oh i almost forgot , if the bike breaks you have to ride to the blacksmith to fix it. NO free wheels from the sack wagon.
I wonder which one would finish . mmmmmmm interesting comparison.

It could very well be that our grandpappys were very strong indeed.
some even had to high tail it in chuck wagons from all sortsof bad guys while shooting rifles . Most of our cyclists cant even hold a rifle , let alone shoot one while riding a horse , because their arms are so skinny they havent got the strength . All about that power to weight ratio output , lmao .

what we have today is a specialized human riding a specialized machine and they are capable of pretty much only that. Take that man sailing and they freeze at 15degrees C ... pretty much a warm sunny day for the rest of us .
but no we cant climb alp d huez or any other , ,because we weigh in at over 180 to 250 lbs and they all weigh in at 135lbs or there abouts. So it takes us longer to reach the top , but we can do lots of other stuff they cant.
BUT BOY DO WE GO GOOD DOWNHILL .... HAHAH

So the point being what exactly , we now go a bit faster because we changed some technology but our overall health decreased , and ment we needed to become specialists. The only reason we live longer is because we try to avoid cutting our heads off with sabers or shooting each other a lot.
We also learned a bit of medicine in the mean time . Is our core strength better at birth , not really. This opens up a whole new realm . Best left for another thread.