Winner's avg. speed trends in the TdF

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Why is this thread "dying". It has content like few others (climbing power numbers)...

Ok maybe because it´s not fiting in the theory of still big time doping, and that it disproves the theory about EPO-Performance explosion in 1989-1991.

But, hard numbers like here and in the "power data threads" speak more than 1.000 speculative threads...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Why is this thread "dying". It has content like few others (climbing power numbers)...

Ok maybe because it´s not fiting in the theory of still big time doping, and that it disproves the theory about EPO-Performance explosion in 1989-1991.

But, hard numbers like here and in the "power data threads" speak more than 1.000 speculative threads...

Because it makes it look like the peloton, in its entirety, is jacked; or that there is no doping going on at all.

Tough questions to answer. It comes back to the usefullness/aplication of looking at a broad spectrum of data vs. the data that's important.

People want a simple yes/no answer. That's not possible based on exogenous data, or even the BioPass. Hence the unending debate over climbing time, wattage per kilo, etc.

I've resorted to the "yeah, well duh" phase...

If the UCI finds its' nuts I may change my opinion. As of now? Duh...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

JM

I tought there would be more discussions about the 60/70s mystery...

My conclusions after reading this great thread so far:
1.) Before Doping-Tests and the Simpson death in the 60´s, there were no boundaries in doping. Thus leading to a steady improvement in km/h.
2.) The field was scared in the 60/70s leading to a drop in km/h besides shorter tours.
3.) There must be a big impact of ampetamins/steroids, thus leading to a steady improvement in km/h from 1976-1990.
4.) Epo did not have the big impact as tought. Even tough there is a small spike in 1990; if you draw the line from 1989-1991, the improvement is as steady as before. I wouldn´t overestimate 1990 because of small sample size.
5.) There was no change after Festina. The transfusions just replaced Epo.
6.) Since 2006, for the 1st time since the 60s, the peloton is feared since there is no more improvement in km/h besides "easier" tours. So indeed the passport has an impact, even tough some riders are/were protected.

What´s also left unanswered is: How much percent of the steady improvement goes to doping, and how much can be explained by shorter stages/tours, better nutrition, improved equipment, wider talent pools since the mid to late 80s.

I can only wild guess here, so i go with 50/50. So there is plenty more to discuss.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sean Kelly Anecdote

Sean Kelly just discussed the differences between circa-2011 Tour and his era on today's TdF telecast.

A few things jumped out relevant to this thread.

-Max stage time is much smaller. The last group does not have the same luxury they did during his era.

-There were 'easy' stages. After mountainous stages, the entire peloton would take it easy across flat stages until the last few Kilometers.

-Stages ran relatively easy until the last 100Km. Kelly was describing the 'boss of the peloton' during his time as a very young rider and how there was definite order until 100K to go.

All that suggests ASO's tweaks to the race's format have increased the speed.

 

[Chuffy]

Would it fair to say that the bunch stays together for longer these days? It's pretty unusual for the big GC contenders to do much more than follow wheels until the final col on a mountain stage, as opposed to launching long distance raids.

A greater emphasis on bunch riding would have the effect of dragging up average speed, especially if you have riders from a much wider pool with better equipment, better nutrition/training etc.

 

[Polish]

Sean Kelly just discussed the differences between circa-2011 Tour and his era on today's TdF telecast.

A few things jumped out relevant to this thread.

-Max stage time is much smaller. The last group does not have the same luxury they did during his era.

-There were 'easy' stages. After mountainous stages, the entire peloton would take it easy across flat stages until the last few Kilometers.

-Stages ran relatively easy until the last 100Km. Kelly was describing the 'boss of the peloton' during his time as a very young rider and how there was definite order until 100K to go.

All that suggests ASO's tweaks to the race's format have increased the speed.

The rider's of the 80's with their 80's fitness levels and their 80's equipment and their 80's doping would be spit out the back of the modern peloton.

And it is NOT because of the doping, like a few of the old guys claim waawaa.
Little to do with it.
The 80's rider with 80's fitness and 80's equipment and CURRENT PEDS would STILL be spit out the back.

Its a much faster race, boys, a much faster race.
What was the average speed of the first week just passed?
Faster then anything the 80's riders faced.
"But its because of the PEDS waawaa" say a few.
No its not lol. Thats such a Myth.

If anything its because of the money.
Speeds increased with the big time million dollar contracts.
Money has quickened the pace more than PEDS?

Lawyers and contracts have quickened the race.
Doctors and syringes have quickened the race too.
And you can not deny it is a GREAT RACE.
The Greatest Race ever!

 

[biokemguy]

Effect of Dominant Sprint Trains

After watching today's stage I was wondering if the presence of a dominant sprinter, with team support, has increased the average speed of the race.

Is the formulaic chasing down of the break on sprint stages that we see today something that was seen in the 60's and 70's (before my time)?

I'm thinking that maybe the flat stages are run at a much higher speed than in the past.

This probably isn't the sole reason for the increase in speed over time, but definitely a factor.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

This thread is moronic.

Average speeds have 1000x more to do with the speed the sprinters teams choose to pull back break aways than it does to do with doped up GC men taking 30 minutes over a key climb.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yeah and it becomes even more moronic if somebody doesn´t understand the numbers. Ever heard of sample size? Why you think the OP-Graph did use 10 years per Avg.-Speed?

Better use your brain Waterloo, before posting nonsense... Ah, i know guys like you better discuss theories without any back ups. That makes it easier to "proof" their points.

Offending guys like you are just annoying.

 

[Polish]

This thread is moronic.

Average speeds have 1000x more to do with the speed the sprinters teams choose to pull back break aways than it does to do with doped up GC men taking 30 minutes over a key climb.

Fausto rode up the Alpe way back in 1952 in 45 minutes
Crappy roads and a 5 speed.

Fignon and Herrera rode up in 41 minutes during the 80's.
10% faster than doper Fausto.
Steel is still real.

And now Marco has the record of 37 minutes.
10% faster again.
Steady progression - just like the Overall-Speed steady progression.

Although I will say the progression will probably stall out with Lance.
Pinnacle of Awesomeness.

 

[Escarabajo]

This thread is moronic.

Average speeds have 1000x more to do with the speed the sprinters teams choose to pull back break aways than it does to do with doped up GC men taking 30 minutes over a key climb.

If you don't understand the numbers don't post wrong information.

Read the whole thread to find out other reasons for the changes in speed. I can't believe that you actually believe there is only one reason for the changes. (???)

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

If you don't understand the numbers don't post wrong information.

Read the whole thread to find out other reasons for the changes in speed. I can't believe that you actually believe there is only one reason for the changes. (???)

I'm afraid I fail to understand why you would want to pollute your sample with the 90% of the time spent riding on the flat when the more interesting maximal effort data can be seperated and analysed on its own.

Feel free to pun away on my first 6 words.

 

[Escarabajo]

I'm afraid I fail to understand why you would want to pollute your sample with the 90% of the time spent riding on the flat when the more interesting maximal effort data can be seperated and analysed on its own.

Feel free to pun away on my first 6 words.

Again, many more reasons for the changes in speed.

Even at flat terrain it takes energy to beat the drag. Velocity cube FYI.

 

[RChung]

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Again, many more reasons for the changes in speed.

Even at flat terrain it takes energy to beat the drag. Velocity cube FYI.

Thanks for the tip, it's been a long time since GCSE physics, I'd obviously forgotten that...

You are taking several different causal trends, several different people, and aggregating it in to 1 all encompassing measure, then analysing that 1 measure. It's a statistical method I have rarely seen used before, when the data is available to study the different underlying trends seperately, disaggregate and understand the relative contributions.

To give a very simple example, average speed shows no drop off since the EPO era, but climb times do show significant falls since then. By including the increased desire of HTC to drag back breakaways in your 1 single metric the two counterveiling trends muffle each other.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Isn't it ironic that the mods moved this thread to The Clinic at the outset but, despite our best efforts, we can't seem to make it about doping?

Anyway, I'm going to take another stab at it.

I can't find a reference regarding when riders first started wearing radios but, IIRC, their use became widespread in the mid-90s, just as the use of EPO was in ascendancy. Granted, the effect of radios is non-deterministic but I'm inclined to believe it would would serve to lower the average race speed because the peloton has more precise information about the lead of any breakaway.

In the olden days, if there were any "danger men" in the break, if that break got out of sight and if there was any uncertainty, the peloton had to reel them in. Any more, the DS has a laptop PC calculating just how long the peloton can sandbag before they have to go to work.

So you see where this is headed. Could the increase in overall speed that EPO might have produced been offset by a reduction from the rider's use of radios? That would seem to be consistent with faster climbs but "same speed" tours.

 

[Derrick]

The post of R.Chung is a good illustration but let's put it into words. 1956, the Walkowiak year, much derided as a non event, averaged just under 36.5ish whereas 50 years later the Armstrong victories were about 40ish. However before we start thinking how much faster racers are now it's worth considering that Walkowiak and his compatriots rode 4500km. whereas today's riders do 3250. That means Walkowiak's race was getting on for 40% longer. Not only was the race longer but there were only 120 starters and only 88 finishers. Now anybody who has raced {and I have to confess that I sometimes wonder just how many on this forum actually have}knows that the bigger the field the easier it is to go fast. Much is made of riders doing 50 kph but with the 200 or so riders we get in today's race it's almost impossible not to go that fast especially given the good roads, and if you doubt the quality of today's roads just look at some of the classic pictures posted elsewhere on this site. Given the roads,equipment, the big field, and the amount of back up and here I think I am right in saying in the early 60's Flandria, surely the most iconic of teams, had a back up team of 6 whereas one team this year has 43, it seems to me today's riders haven't progressed very far if at all. Even with everything going for them not all today's events are "fast". It's worth remembering that Van Steenbergen's 1948 Paris- Roubaix win was faster than Cancellara's recent win and it wasn't on the Peter Post "Blue Riband" course although it was somewhat shorter.

Finally, this is the first time I have looked into the "clinic" posts on this site and I have to say I've never read so much nonsense in my life and for cycling websites that's saying something!

 

[poupou]

And in the old days, there were no mountain arrival, so the average speed of mountain stages were higher.

 

[function]

...Now anybody who has raced {and I have to confess that I sometimes wonder just how many on this forum actually have}...
Finally, this is the first time I have looked into the "clinic" posts on this site and I have to say I've never read so much nonsense in my life and for cycling websites that's saying something!

Welcome to The Clinic

 

[Derrick]

Thanks for the welcome Function.
Just scrabbling about with some old stuff I came up with some info which might help explain the apparent Tour speed increase.
1978{Hinault's first} 3908km so 600+ more than this year. 110 starters and 78 finishers so not far off half of today's field. The individual t.t was 75km as opposed to this years 41km. plus there was a hilly t.t. of 52.5 km finishing up the Puy de Dome. As an example;
Stage 11---First mountain stage.
Stage 12---Split stage---254 km.{there was a riders revolt.}
Stage 13---Super Besse---221.5 km---6hr. 43 min.
Stage 14---Puy de Dome mountain t.t.---52.5km.
Stage 15---Flatish stage---233.5km.
Stage 16---Alpe Duez---240.5 km.{This year it's 109km}---7hr. 23min.
Stage 17---a real mountain stage, 6 major climbs,225km---7hr. 13min{Hinault was second at nearly 10 min.}

I hope that gives a rough idea as to why the average speed is higher today!

 

[RChung]

The post of R.Chung is a good illustration but let's put it into words. 1956, the Walkowiak year, much derided as a non event, averaged just under 36.5ish whereas 50 years later the Armstrong victories were about 40ish. However before we start thinking how much faster racers are now it's worth considering that Walkowiak and his compatriots rode 4500km. whereas today's riders do 3250. That means Walkowiak's race was getting on for 40% longer. Not only was the race longer but there were only 120 starters and only 88 finishers. Now anybody who has raced {and I have to confess that I sometimes wonder just how many on this forum actually have}knows that the bigger the field the easier it is to go fast. Much is made of riders doing 50 kph but with the 200 or so riders we get in today's race it's almost impossible not to go that fast especially given the good roads, and if you doubt the quality of today's roads just look at some of the classic pictures posted elsewhere on this site. Given the roads,equipment, the big field, and the amount of back up and here I think I am right in saying in the early 60's Flandria, surely the most iconic of teams, had a back up team of 6 whereas one team this year has 43, it seems to me today's riders haven't progressed very far if at all. Even with everything going for them not all today's events are "fast". It's worth remembering that Van Steenbergen's 1948 Paris- Roubaix win was faster than Cancellara's recent win and it wasn't on the Peter Post "Blue Riband" course although it was somewhat shorter.

Yup. However, that's still only part of the story--there's still the second graphic. The first graphic shows the approximate relationship between distance and winner's speed, and the pattern is clear. However, it could still be the case that some years are faster than their short distance would suggest, and that that would be an indicator of EPO use. That difference is called the residual. So I did the exact same thing for the Giro: that is, I examined the relationship between Giro length and Giro speed, and noticed that as length decreased the speed increased, as expected. However, the years that were faster (or slower) than the predicted speed weren't the same as for the Tour. That's what the bottom graphic shows: if you think that EPO was introduced around 1990, and that increasing Tour and Giro speeds are a result of doping, then all the 1990's should be in the upper right quadrant. They're not. So unless EPO was introduced and then cleaned up at different times in France and Italy, the overall speed isn't a good indicator of EPO use in the peloton. Overall speeds are more likely a result of decisions made by the organizers about the race course.

 

[Polish]

Since he (Tommy D ed) and everyone around him also achieved this amazing feat, how do YOU explain it. I mean, you have to have some opinion given your interest in the topic and having started the thread.

I think improvements in technology and training are the major reasons.

I know you do not want to hear thsi - but Lance has had an impact on the peloton in both those areas.

Greg had a similiar impact on technology and training way back when too.
Well, at least the technology part lol.

Plus all those great reasons that posters are posting over in the "TdF Analysis" thread by ScienceIsCool too.

 

[poupou]

EPO gives the ability to race harder for a longer time.
But by riding faster, body burns more energy.
How long can it last before having the energy tank empty?

 

[python]

EPO gives the ability to race harder for a longer time.
But by riding faster, body burns more energy.
How long can it last before having the energy tank empty?

it's a good question but i don't believe it has significant relevance to average speed in the context of the thread.

if we are to look into the classic metabolic theory, the short answer is - a pro rider has plenty of stores to ride a 200km stage at 40-45 km/h.

a longer answer is a bit more complicated...

the fuel muscles use during a 5-6 h effort is a mix of 3 substrates -fat, carbohydrates and protein. the higher the effort intensity, the higher the proportion of carbs. given that an 'average' stage is ridden way below a threshold intensity (say lt is 75-85% of vo2 max), fat provides a very substantial source. and we know that even a slim rider (5-6% body fat) would carry plenty of flab to last a stage. plus a rider uses his own carb stores (2000+ cal) and eats stuff during a race...

on balance, if a rider burned say 5000 cal during a long stage, a reasonable assumption would be - half came from carbs (eaten and stored), 40-45% from fat and 5-10% from protein.

 

[VeloCity]

Thanks for the welcome Function.
Just scrabbling about with some old stuff I came up with some info which might help explain the apparent Tour speed increase.
1978{Hinault's first} 3908km so 600+ more than this year. 110 starters and 78 finishers so not far off half of today's field. The individual t.t was 75km as opposed to this years 41km. plus there was a hilly t.t. of 52.5 km finishing up the Puy de Dome. As an example;
Stage 11---First mountain stage.
Stage 12---Split stage---254 km.{there was a riders revolt.}
Stage 13---Super Besse---221.5 km---6hr. 43 min.
Stage 14---Puy de Dome mountain t.t.---52.5km.
Stage 15---Flatish stage---233.5km.
Stage 16---Alpe Duez---240.5 km.{This year it's 109km}---7hr. 23min.
Stage 17---a real mountain stage, 6 major climbs,225km---7hr. 13min{Hinault was second at nearly 10 min.}

I hope that gives a rough idea as to why the average speed is higher today!

Which is one reason the comparison between the average speed of the Indurain years and Danielson's this year that Polish raised in another thread (since closed) is apples and oranges - during the Indurain wins, the Tour length ranged between ~3600-4000 km (three of Indurain's wins were over 3900 km), whereas this year's was ~3400 km. That's nearly - in terms of distance - two or three or four extra stages during the Indurain years as compared to what Danielson had to contend with - add 2-4 more stages to this year's race (and add to that, the general pattern in the Indurain years was the inclusion of 3 ITT's: a prologue and two long ITT's, usually one or both longer than the 41-km ITT of this year's TdF) and then let's see what the average speed of this year's TdF - and that of Danielson's - would've been.

Having said that, while long-term trends - or sudden jumps - can be informative, there are far too many factors that have to be taken into account for comparisons of average speed to be very meaningful.