Winner's avg. speed trends in the TdF

[indurain666]

I like a good bet. But, I am only taking this one if I get to choose from Spanish riders or Spanish residents. You can have absolutely everyone else.

Until (if ever) they tighten up PED accessibility, Spain is plain.



Dave.

Unlike other countries such as France, Belgium (Belgian pot anyone?), Italy, Germany, USA, Colombia where PEDs are so difficult to find!

 

[Le breton]

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.

Thanks for your post. Interesting.

I only today came to visit this thread as the title made me think the discussion was bound to be mostly silly.

A comment :

While the average speed on flat stages does not teach you much, you can learn a lot by looking at the estimated power output on climbs, in particular the last climb of mountainous stages. In other words what Vayer-Portoleau and a few others have been doing for years, irritating the unavowed defenders of doping and omerta.

 

[slcbiker]

I'd argue that there are still so many variables on mountain stages that comparing imputed power numbers is still pretty iffy.
Wind, temperature, length of stage, how many climbs before the one being measured, how difficult of stages in the days before, composition of group climbing, whether or not there is a competitive break up the road all would affect how fast a rider is going.

 

[RChung]

A comment :

While the average speed on flat stages does not teach you much, you can learn a lot by looking at the estimated power output on climbs, in particular the last climb of mountainous stages. In other words what Vayer-Portoleau and a few others have been doing for years, irritating the unavowed defenders of doping and omerta.

Hmmm. I've been doing estimates of power during various climbs for longer than Vayer, and irritating the self-avowed accusers of dopers.

Now that actual power files are being published for stages, it's (occasionally) possible to makes estimates of "virtual" wind experienced by riders during their climbs. That could help improve the "error bounds" (actually, they're more like "plausibility bounds") on estimates like Vayer's.

 

[Le breton]

Hmmm. I've been doing estimates of power during various climbs for longer than Vayer, ......

I believe you. I also was doing calculations ages ago when I didn't have any available data other than altitude differences in the mountain passes.. and no mountain passes nearby. Looking back I am amazed that I actually managed to get a pretty good estimate of my own power output without even knowing anything about rolling resistance coefficients or my CdA!
I didn't even know enough to inflate my sew-ups properly for races, all those kJ lost for nothing, probably riding with 3 or 4 bars

Then, 10 years later someone offered me "Bicycling Science" by Whitt and Wilson, maybe you were born by then.
Unfortunately I was too busy with work and family to study it thoroughly or look for other sources.
Finally, in 1991, Look produced the Max1. Luckily I calibrated it against the nearest mountain pass right at the start so that I could follow its demise week by week

10 years later I acquired something better : a Powertap. Unfortunately age puts me now in a dangerously falling part of the power vs age graph

As for Vayer, I really would like to see his Festina files of lab tests made on the likes of Virenque, Zulle, Brochard, etc.

I doubt if he actually does any calculation, which he leaves to Portoleau.

 

[RChung]

Oh dear. Your history sounds like mine, although I never had a Look MaxOne. My bete noire was the original PowerTap Prolog. Anyone who knows me knows how ironic it was that I should have the only power meter whose data was not downloadable. After Whitt & Wilson came out, guys quickly coded the equations into the (in)famous bikepower.c, which I used in the late 1980's.

 

[Fergoose]

Not meaning to poo-poo the thread, but I think timings on the last climbs of the day and on Individual Time Trials are the only suitable like for like comparisons if you are trying to make a case for the rise and fall (or rise and rise) of doping. I think any such information will be being smothered here by data relating to flat stages.

Could the increase throughout the 90s onwards perhaps be partially explained by the rise of the leadout train and improved timings via team radio? This seems to have made breakaways know they have to fight harder to even have the tiniest chance of success and I'm sure it will contribute to an increased speed of the peloton in the closing stages of er... stages.

Of course, if the routine usage of leadout trains predates Cipollini then my theory is sunk, but I can't recall seeing them so much before the Saeco days.

 

[Le breton]

Not meaning to poo-poo the thread, but I think timings on the last climbs of the day and on Individual Time Trials are the only suitable like for like comparisons if you are trying to make a case for the rise and fall (or rise and rise) of doping. ..........

Unfortunately the ITT in the TdF rarely use the same route, they also seldom describe a loop, so that wind is often a major factor.

Although wind can still be a factor you need to take into account in a loop race, its influence is obviously reduced in that case.

However, in an ITT there is a beautiful example of the effect of PED : Lac de Vassivière TTs.

Such TT were held in 1985, 1990 and 1995.

Its interesting to note that the winning times were nearly identical in 1985 and 1990 but witnessed a huge improvement in 1995.

I once compared the individual performances of racers in that TT on a forum and I believe I still have the data somewhere.

 

[RChung]

Unfortunately the ITT in the TdF rarely use the same route, they also seldom describe a loop, so that wind is often a major factor.

Yeah, but sometimes you can still interesting patterns. Like:

2003 Worlds:

2004 Vuelta:

2005 TdF:

2006 TdF:

There are others, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[Polish]

However, in an ITT there is a beautiful example of the effect of PED : Lac de Vassivière TTs.

Such TT were held in 1985, 1990 and 1995.

Its interesting to note that the winning times were nearly identical in 1985 and 1990 but witnessed a huge improvement in 1995.
.

Le breton, the 1985 ITT was won on a standard steel bike with drop bars.
Toe clips and a cycling cap worn backwards.

The 1995 ITT was won on a TT Specific Technology by the strongest TTer of all time.

Did PEDS make as much of a difference as the Technology and the Rider?

As the decades go by and the riders get faster and faster and faster, the 1990's will seem quaint. And much cleaner.

 

[python]

<snip>
Did PEDS make as much of a difference as the Technology and the Rider?

<snip>

technology difference:

i would use - and this is only a fair quick estimate as other road factors may apply - the difference between the fully aero 1 hour record and the conventional bike 1 hour record yielding..
56/50 -->give or take 12%

blood doping difference:

depends on the rider (poor/good responder) and the doping period in question.

I would cautiously be on the side that the differences are comparable with perhaps technology edge (just for the full itt aero) being perhaps a tad wider.

 

[Le breton]

Le breton, the 1985 ITT was won on a standard steel bike with drop bars.
Toe clips and a cycling cap worn backwards.

The 1995 ITT was won on a TT Specific Technology by the strongest TTer of all time.

.

You mean Hinault went back to toe clips just for that 1985 TT?

How about 1990? No change in aero components from 1985.
And the suddenly in 1995 the aero components pop up?

Please do your homework before replying.

 

[danjo007]

Its simply better equipment and a evolved form of racing nowdays compared to the past.

 

[Le breton]

Its simply better equipment and a evolved form of racing nowdays compared to the past.

So, you don't understand the point any better than Polish. Too bad

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

So lets consider this from the opposite perspective.


Speeds are averaged for multiple winners. And DQed riders had to be included because ...well, doping is the whole point.



So when does the drop-off begin? I mean, if the winner's speeds have been being inflated because of PEDs, and if the sport is now clean(er), shouldn't we be seeing a return to something closer to Lemond than to Landis?

After all, not only did Lemond have the magic 94 VO2max, he also was the last (presumed) clean rider before EPO ate the sport. So one might think his performance would be something of a high water mark. Which it isn't. Which distresses me.

As I showed in an earlier chart, prior to Lemond, there was only ever one TdF significantly faster than 38 kph (1981, 38.96 kph). Yet after Lemond, there hasn't been a single TdF at less than 38 kph (the slowest has been 1994, 38.383 kph). The slowest post-Indurain TdF was 2007, 38.98 kph.

The next multiple winner after Lemond was Indurain. Indurain's five averaged 1.3 kph faster than Lemond's three. However, it widely is accepted that Indutrain was the first All EPO, All The Time pro. Lemond, OTOH, was clean (so far as we know). Yet Cadel's and Wiggo's wins both were faster than the fastest of the Big Mig's five on the trot.

So is it the state of the sport or my expectations of it that bears no connection to reality? Are 2-way radios, 6.8 kilo bikes, ceramic bearings, aero handlebar tape and yellow rubber bands worn about the wrist enough to account for the 1.3 kph post-Lemond increase in speed, an increase it does not seem to be capable of losing?

Can the numbers ever tell us when the sport is no longer doped to the gills? Because unless the benefits of doping have been drastically oversold, something just don't figure.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

The answer is to look at the one-day races that haven't changed course much over the years. I've looked at Paris-Roubaix and Milan-San Remo. Those races have not changed one iota (in a statistical sense) in terms of average speed.

This is important because it means that you can rule out technological advances to explain speed differences in other races. Tech differences would affect all races equally.

So why are stage races like TdF faster? To answer that, you have to figure out the differences between the one-day races listed above and the GT's. The TdF has had a relatively stable parcours (stage lengths and difficulties such as number of TT's and amount of climbing) in the last thirty years, so it's not that.

I figure that the differences amount to the amount of climbing and the ability to recover. By recovery, I assume that riders are well rested before the race whereas riders should get progressively more fatigued as during a Tour.

So what has affected ability to climb and recover? Well, oxygen vector drugs of course. Blood transfusions, and maybe to a lesser extent steroids.

John Swanson

 

[Ferminal]

The answer is that riders like Danny Pate and Bert Grabsch have a bigger impact on average speeds than Alberto Contador and Cadel Evans.

 

[the sceptic]

So they are going faster on the flat stages now that in the late 90s? That seems like the only reasonable explanation to me (maybe im stupid)

The answer is to look at the one-day races that haven't changed course much over the years. I've looked at Paris-Roubaix and Milan-San Remo. Those races have not changed one iota (in a statistical sense) in terms of average speed.

Do you mean they have not changed in the EPO era until present or do you include pre EPO races as well?

 

[Zweistein]

Interesting that the coming of EPO doesn't seem to have caused a disturbance in the evolution of the average speed.

What graph are you looking at? Things got a lot faster according to the graph since the late 80s. I though think that can be misleading because if the race is raced conservatively and everyone waits until the last climb, you might think that EPO didn't speed things up. Peter Post still holds the record for the fastest average speed at Paris Roubaix from 1965 but that has more to do with the fact that now days none of the favorites start pushing the pace hard until 2/3's the way through the course.

If you look at the climbing records, they will look pretty ridiculous. Lemond and Hinault had the Alp de Huez record in 86 at 48:00 and Pantani whittled it down to 37:35 in 97. So in 11 years, it basically came to the point that two of the greatest cyclist of the 80's couldn't even come within 10 minutes of the record time on a single climb. Really?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The answer is to look at the one-day races that haven't changed course much over the years. I've looked at Paris-Roubaix and Milan-San Remo. Those races have not changed one iota (in a statistical sense) in terms of average speed.

I don't know John. The courses have definitely changed and especially something like Paris-Roubaix, those changes are not immaterial.

IMHO, the modern race is calculated to time the finish within minutes. That biases the data.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If you look at the climbing records, they will look pretty ridiculous. Lemond and Hinault had the Alp de Huez record in 86 at 48:00 and Pantani whittled it down to 37:35 in 97. So in 11 years, it basically came to the point that two of the greatest cyclist of the 80's couldn't even come within 10 minutes of the record time on a single climb. Really?

As I recall they were not exactly racing up it towards the end. Also, Coppi seems to have gone pretty quick and that was in the 50s.

Your point still holds imo but I think the above is not a great example.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Can the numbers ever tell us when the sport is no longer doped to the gills? Because unless the benefits of doping have been drastically oversold, something just don't figure.

Nice post. Definitely thought provoking.

If the ASO would go back to the 80's format of the event, then you could really compare well. Can the modern TdF be won on 'pan y agua?' Not likely.

 

[doperhopper]

just 50cts concerning the shortening the Tour's overall length and simultaneous the speed drop (1976 point) - would be nice to see it in the perspective of total climbed meters (if you keep the mountains +/- unchanged and shorten the overall length, the speed goes obviously down since you've cut out mainly the flatter fast parts)

 

[burning]

The answer is that riders like Danny Pate and Bert Grabsch have a bigger impact on average speeds than Alberto Contador and Cadel Evans.

Exactly, It would be meaningful to compare the wattages at climbs and TT's, not those average speed because %90 of those average speed occurs on the flat. (I dont think that excatly comparison is possible because of other factors like competition and difficulty of the race.)

 

[Taxus4a]

Exactly, It would be meaningful to compare the wattages at climbs and TT's, not those average speed because %90 of those average speed occurs on the flat. (I dont think that excatly comparison is possible because of other factors like competition and difficulty of the race.)

The average speed in a Tour is quite useless for that, it is depend more on the route, the strengh of the team, the wind some days, and thinks like that, but if there is an era when the average are higher, it is easy to thing that doping has his part, the same that would be difficult to think cycling getting more clean if the average is year by year growing up.

But that is only a reference. The trend shoul be to increase very slowly year by year if the parcours are similar, becouse tecnology and preparation improve always